When DHHS first announced its intention to award the IOM contract, I asked the same question: “Why is a clear distinction needed between a clinical definition and a research case definition? The International Consensus Panel argues that 'it is imperative that research for ME be carried out on patients who actually have ME.'” Patients may have themselves to blame, however, for this development. At the June 2102 CFSAC meeting, PANDORA lobbied for the development of two case definitions: As a result of Dr. Susan Levine's argument at that CFSAC meeting, Dr. Lee began to focus on a broader clinical definition: In its September and October statements, PANDORA modified its position: “At least three different definitions are needed: a clinical definition, a more narrow research definition, and a clinical pediatric definition, and these should be developed together from the same initiative.” The September statement argues, “Numerous researchers tell us that a research definition should be narrower than the clinical definition. A narrower research definition ensures a more pure cohort, which will more likely lead to more biomarker discoveries.” PANDORA's statements ignore, however, the experts' position: PANDORA ignores too the fact that the ICC is both a clinical and a research definition.