I would like to offer some additional information that may be relevant. As @Ren mentioned earlier, I've been conducting an investigation of the CFS Special Emphasis Panel. I am still fighting with NIH over their failure to disclose some documents, but I have gotten some of what I requested. See this post for more background. In simple terms, here's how the review process works. There is a CFS Special Emphasis Panel for grant review which generally meets three times a year. Each meeting of the Panel involves different reviewers. Depending on the applications up for review, NIH invites reviewers with relevant expertise. After the application is scored by reviewers, it goes to one of the NIH councils which sets the "pay line," in other words they set the score above which grants get funded (and to my knowledge the pay line applies regardless of the subject matter of a grant). Historically, there have been complaints that the Panel has included too many psychologists, etc. and this is what I'm in the process of investigating. It's important to point out, though, that an application related to ME/CFS does not HAVE to go through the Special Emphasis Panel. An application could be reviewed by one of the virology study sections, for example. Exactly how the applications are assigned to review panels, and how much say an applicant has in that, is unclear to me. Dr. Lipkin told me that his application got one bad review from someone who apparently did not understand ME/CFS. I asked him if the grant was reviewed by the CFS Special Emphasis Panel but he did not respond. But this is CRITICAL information. Obviously, if the grant was reviewed by the Special Emphasis Panel and a reviewer did not understand ME/CFS, we have a big problem. But if the grant was reviewed by another study section, we have a different problem. Without knowing which panel reviewed the grant, we cannot draw conclusions about who is at fault. I'm not criticizing Dr. Lipkin for withholding this information. It's very sensitive, and I acknowledged that when I asked the question. But without that information, we can't really identify the problem. Maybe the problem was a non-ME/CFS expert. Or an ME/CFS expert who didn't understand the application. Or maybe there were deficiencies in the application itself. Or maybe the other ME/CFS applications were better. We simply do not have enough information to say for sure. And Dr. Lipkin also said in his email to me that the issue was not that NIH does not want to fund ME/CFS research. I strongly encourage people to read my analysis of NIH spending on ME/CFS in 2013. That post also includes links to my analyses of spending in 2012 and 2011. Look at the FACTS of how the money is being spent, how much is going to psychological spending, and whether the money is going up or down. Our advocacy will be more effective if we are fully educated about the facts because we can make stronger arguments from an informed position. I realize that this is complicated stuff, and heavy on data, but it is really important for us to get a handle on this.