Researcher Interactions Patient Representative Reports from Dr Karl Morten's collaborative group, Oxford, UK

If his marks from the three assessors are along the lines of 9, 8, and 3, then it follows the pattern that Jonathan Kerr reported many years ago (assuming that they still run the same system). If that is so, and if we could find out what scores Morton obtained, I think it would form strong evidence of systemic prejudice.

In general, a total score of around 24 is needed, so any one assessor can scupper an application. The MRC defence is that such applications and their assessments are then put to a board: the obvious comeback to that is that if the board are so thorough, why do they need assessors?

I did put in a formal complaint to the MRC a few years back, but it was hard to pin anything down: they do not publish which applications are refused, but I did discover that a much higher proportion of applications for research into ME is rejected than the average. There is very little information out there about unsuccessful applications – the Gibson report of 2006 (?) probably said the most about it.

This could of course simply reflect the poor quality of applications, which is the MRC line. But if scores for ME applications are consistently very unbalanced, I think further action could be appropriate. It doesn't make sense for three experienced and skilled assessors to disagree so greatly, and if that disagreement was to be consistent across a particular type of application ...

 

I'm so disappointed. It seemed to me that he had fantastic pilot studies to back up his application. Really concerned that the wider collaborative team will have to disband.

I was shocked to read what @Graham wrote. Thinking about it I guess it may be true. If only we could find out why they turn down applications - is there really bias / old boys network at play?

Does anyone know if there are other ME applications fighting for the same pot of money, and could that have influenced this denial?

 

I don't know if it would have influenced this decision, but the CMRC are building up to making an application(s). Reported here, https://www.s4me.info/threads/me-re...e-spring-2019-now-available.9873/#post-175077

 

Karl has given me permission to share this.



"The metabolomics would have involved over 1000 samples with the Oxford section including a set of longitudinal plasma samples over 12 months with associated activity monitoring."

"The proposal at £2 million was felt too expensive to be taken to the panel meeting. The team was felt to not have a track record of similar projects with the MRC and the project was considered risky. The reviews were a mixed bag. Three excellent and very good, 5, 5 and 4 out of 6. The remaining 3 reviews were low scores 3, 2 and 2. To be funded by an MRC panel predominately 5 and 6's are required. You might get away with a 4. We felt we were in a good position to respond to the comments particularly those from the low scores. Some useful feed back was given by some of the reviewers and we will take this on board in future applications"

 

I wonder if it’s unusual to have such a range of scores. It certainly seems to indicate there is a significant problem with at least some of the panel having preconceived notions about ME.

 

I have not seen the application but I have been told it was for a large sum and included work on what sounded like a pseudoscientific therapy. I don't know for sure but I suspect it was unfundable. The sensible thing to do in Morten's position would be to ask for a project grant of about £400,000 max for one critical experiment that confirmed initial findings, with a definitive publication. If that worked out then setting up a large collaborative programme would be reasonable. The MRC is not necessarily the preferred place for an initial project application. Wellcome have more of a track record for covering that sort of stage of a project.

I don't have much information on Morten's work. There is one publication on the use of Raman spectroscopy that I find hard to understand. Morten seems to be trying to push ahead on his own when it might be better to join forces with others in the metabolic and ME fields.

It would be interesting to know what was actually in the application and what the referees' comments said.

 

This is an interesting thread. In the real world I have experience of applying for research funding for engineering technology research. The overall budgets are a bit less than those described here (<£500k) however a key part (in my area) has always been understanding the interests of the scoring panel and directing our submission accordingly to pre-emptively address their likely concerns. For the MRC do those submitting proposals know who will be scoring their work in advance, i.e. do those on the panel sit for a fixed term? From the comments above it all sounds a little cloak and dagger.

 

Yeah, normally you'd anticipate their objections and try to answer them in advance. It happens in the arts funding world, too. But usually if you get turned away, you ask for feedback, tweak, and resubmit. You don't give up.

Then again, the Arts Council's Project Grants scheme has about a 38% chance of success, so you'll usually succeed the second time around if you listen to their feedback. I'm not sure what the success rates are for the MRC, but I bet they're lower, given the larger sums and greater risk.

 

The usual situation for biomedical projects is that they are sent out for review to independent experts. The panel will be known but their job is just to try to come to some sort of consensus view based on the referees' reports. If all the referees agree it is easy. If not then the job is to try to understand which of the referees is giving a more cogent analysis.

The referees are likely to be chosen by the committee chair or a sub-chair dealing with a particular topic. It may be possible to guess which referees will be chosen, but mostly it will just reflect who is high profile in the field.

Applicants are often asked to suggest one or two referees. That ensures that if their work is very original or specialised then one or two of what may be very few people who appreciate the value of the project get a chance to say why it is good. This is a major reason why it is possible to get scores out of 6 of 5,5,2,2,3,2. However, the referees picked by the applicant may be as blind as the applicant to basic flaws in the project. Sadly, my impression is that in the last twenty years biomedical science has largely been taken over by people who do not understand basic flaws in projects and so everyone is wasting their time on meaningless trends.

There is no doubt that the system is full of people with vested interests jockeying to push each other out - it stinks. But people are like that and the bad odour of the system is not necessarily the reason why projects fail. It may be that they are flawed.

I understand people's enthusiasm for projects that sound positive. However, we need to be sure that researchers are not making simple methodological or theoretical errors of the sort we have seen in clinical trials. Comments made by Jonathan Kerr recently indicate to me that he does not have the necessary critical approach. He makes claims that appear to be quite unsubstantiated. Sadly, that applies to a number of other people in the ME research community.

We do not want money wasted on projects built on sand. On the other hand if a project has some underlying merit and can be steered along a methodologically rigorous course it is worth giving it full support. That is basically what happened with the Rituximab story. The initial findings were weak but could have been important. The project was taken forward in a watertight way and the right answer was obtained. I would like to see something similar happen for the metabolic work. Preliminary findings may be important. But they need firming up before pouring large sums of money in.

It is certainly a pity that Morten put this application in right in the middle of the finalisation of the long and complicated process set up by CMRC for the genomic studies. I have reservations about researchers forming cartels but this is now the second time that two applications have collided in the UK ME community (last time Wellcome applications).

 

In this context for this sort of application I would guess 2%.

 

So really, we should be expecting failure most of the time, with the assumption that researchers will try again until they get it right or come up with a better idea.

 

I don't understand why everybody isn't focusing 100% on finding out what's in the blood that causes problems.

 

As I understand it, the application, even if amended to try to answer the reviewers comments, will not be considered again in, I assume, this financial year.

And that is something that, I believe, Karl will be able to continue working on. But surely it's a good thing if researchers who are interested in ME, but who don't have the interest and/or expertise to investigate the something in the blood, are funded in their work? The something in the blood is promising, but the same could have been said about XMRV at one time - better to have eggs in many baskets rather than just one.

 

Yet Jonathan says

Which suggests that he thinks it might have done.

 

Is Karl Mortem going to stick with us and stay working on M.E given this lovely news? I hope we won't lose him.. I haven't read through thread.

 

Was he assessed and rejected before the start of the new financial year? If so, perhaps he can reapply this year?

It would make sense to put everything in near the end of the year, so that when it's rejected, you can submit again within a few months because it'll be a new financial year.

 

I can tell you that Karl is doing what he can to stay in the field but, to be realistic about it, if he doesn't have any funding at all then he would have to look at research fields where he is able to bring funding in. He's not at that stage yet but it is a possibility.