United Kingdom: ME Association news

Assessment and monitoring of grants could be about making sure a project is on target and that the team is reporting what it agreed to (not the end findings, just the stages of the process) before payment of grant instalments is made.

It might be quite light touch if projects proceed as expected, but it could be more involved if, for instance, a member of a team left their job and had to be replaced (which might mean the timetable was adjusted), or the research turned up an unforeseen but valuable opportunity to pursue something that wasn't in the original proposal.

I hope it doesn't have the same meaning in the assessment of initial grant proposals, because one person really isn't enough.

[Edited slightly to tidy up]

 

Well, I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Mr Barton. I wonder if Colin's comment will be hidden?

 

30 studies costing £33,000
or
20 studies costing £50,000
or
10 costing £100,000
could be funded with that £1 million.

 

All i know is an ethics committee screens grant proposals in some way maybe similar to how a journal screens for publication afterwards, and recently I gathered that maybe the ethics committee also screen the methodology. purpose and productivity etc, I had thought they only vetted and certified if ethical. I think there may be are far more factors to screen for in a proposal, than in the published results

I understand that the reserve fund is getting very big, maybe from legacies. but also its said to be small compared to the costs of reseaand rch usually available. Either way I don't see it working well to farm out an ethic committee. I would have thought its usually done in-house for such a busy investment portfolio, and for such a hi-powered thorough vetting, with such specislised ever-rapidly-updating knowlege, too

But maybe thats not affordable on this scale, its just how i picture a university vetting stuff. with all those experts on hand

 

I do question whether epidemiology needs to take precedence before anyone can even agree widely on how whose what is measurable and measured, when and why and .... please complete

 

I don't think it's the number of studies that's important so much as the likelihood of useful results. I'd be happy for the MEA to drop £1m on a study that was worth it. The key thing is to prioritise, based on our best understanding of the science - and we need good scientists reviewing those proposals as well as carrying them out.

 

Yeah, but “wasting” £30,000 is not as much of a problem as wasting £1 million.
£1 million is relatively a lot in our field. Lots of pilot studies for different theories could be tested for £1 million and if they had some evidence, they would be in a stronger position to get money out of the MRC, NIH, etc.

You mention priorities: there have been lots of epidemiological studies already. It is accepted now a lot of people have it: it’s not like the 1990s.

 

But those aren't the choices, wasting small or wasting big! We don't have to waste any money, in the sense of choosing as well as we can given the information we've got.

The field is awash with small, underpowered studies that have got us nowhere. Even when they come up with positive results, they don't seem to get replicated. Having a small study with a weak signal doesn't seem to put us in a good position to get money out of the big UK funders. I think we've already seen this strategy failing to work, for decades. (Although I'm happy to be proved wrong - can you think of many examples where the big UK funders have coughed up big for positive results in an ME/CFS pilot study?)

Like you, I'm not a fan of this as a priority, although I note that @Chris Ponting had on his list of research priorities, '(iii) studies investigating ME/CFS's true prevalence & incidence rates (in the UK & beyond, and in seldom-included communities)' so I'm open to argument! But I'd be far more interested in seeing studies that might uncover a mechanism. Uncovering the scale of suffering doesn't seem to have helped us so far.

 

The MRC seems to have has a bias in the past towards biomedical ME/CFS research but that doesn’t mean things may not change in the future. Lots of ME/CFS researchers in the US have got NIH funding using this method (pilot data).

The opportunity costs of giving £1 million to an epidemiological study need to be looked at, which is what I have been trying to do. To attract biomedical researchers to the field and keep them in the field private money is important.

Academics can like all sorts of research. There are academics doing all sorts of arcane research (overall). Just because there could be academics who might approve the funding £1 million on an epidemiological study doesn’t mean we need to agree.

 

and i saw nothing looking like an ethics contract in accounts as given, and I don't understand why income and expenditure cannot be itemised anywhere

Also i heard that MEA gave assurance that they make sure everyone in the field knows their funding is available and accessible, but never get enough bites however hard they tried,

- its also said all over that researchers are deterred by their colleagues if not by us

- and although i can't evaluate the his research, someone said that Danny Altmann wasn't getting a look in and needed funding, is there a reason for this ?

- its all too dim and shadowy, we are not being charitably educated as patients

in general I find that where there is no transparency its distinctly fishy although there can be legitimate reasons for trade secrecy on specifics

In this case the obscured emergent problem look like its in the MEA prodedures for making decisions, also allocating and sub-sub-sub contracting (research grants etc) - their primary contract is from their Members and some donors, the rest is sub-contracting.

I first learnt about this matter of research design to produce useful results, and how - from a summary given on S4ME summarising the 2024 Helsinki update of ethics for medical research - which the MEA simply cannot ignore. There is some small leeway eg knowledge derived must be probably..... (I am not sure of the phrase)


2025 rocks @bobbler and @Dx Revision Watch

Spoiler: Apparently the ME Society grew bigger since 2018

from: https://mooreks.co.uk/insights/audit-exemption-and-how-to-take-it/


- the Society is no longer "small" because it grew "full" bigger from 2019-2023:

Total exemption full accounts: what does it mean?
Every year, companies have to prepare statutory accounts and file a version with Companies House. The type of accounts you must file depends on the size and type of the company.

A company that is listed as ‘Total Exemption Full Accounts’ is exempt from an audit but has to file full accounts, including the director’s report. Some companies may not have to submit a full set of accounts depending on their size. They would be listed on Companies House as ‘Total Exemption Small Accounts’.

1. Audit exemption for dormant companies
A dormant company is one that hasn’t performed any significant accounting transactions during the reporting period, so no audit is required.

 

The post by CS clearly stated that CS had taken part in similar trials, CS is the authority on all things ME research

 

I’ve just clicked through and it is no longer there but is replaced by two comments from other people - one of which is asking when there will be a new chairman

 

I am not disputing that. I am simply saying that Charles starts off with a series of weak and misleading statements about what we know. As if he is offering pearls of scientific wisdom to the masses.

 

To be honest, with all the current admin overheads, and insistence that ethical, PIP, R&D and whatever boxes are ticked before you even write a grant you don't get much change from £1M for the tiniest of real studies. £100,000 would just offset some costs for a pilot project you have already done on money 'borrowed' from another grant. It would to fund a project de novo.

MEA have been very good at providing small stop gap sums, which are very valuable at a gestation stage. But things are now at a stage where serious choices need to be made about substantive projects. £2M is probably the starting sum for one of those.

 

Charles has issued clarification on the research that the ME Association may be funding:

https://www.facebook.com/meassociat...HfzNJN2hMiuQvRp2iZH87ZEvF4iR1CeKjyrqGTKPJrkfl

Tom Kindlon's ME CFS & related page: News, Research and more
Hi Tom

To clarify

We are currently looking at two new research proposals - the total cost of which would be over £1 million

The epidemiology study, which is not really about prevalence, is nowhere near £1 million

The other research, which is biomedical, is around £1 million

As you infer, the Ramsay Research Fund has a remit to fund biomedical research into cause and treatment of ME/CFS - which it does

We are, however, able to dip into general funds to occasionally fund research outside this remit. Two examples here would be the research we have funded which has analysed the safety and efficacy of CBT and GET and the analysis at the University of Exeter of results from the most recent patient evidence - which has now been submitted for publication

Hope this clears up any confusion

Charles

 

https://meassociation.org.uk/2025/01/situations-vacant-communications-officer/

"You will help to:

• effectively promote the charity’s services and campaigns.
• monitor social media platforms and answer comments.
• monitor the email account and respond appropriately.
• develop and maintain planned future projects."