I didn't think it was being used as a template for ME/CFS research, but as an example of how a patient charity established research priorities, in this case using both health researchers and patients. And bear in mind that for MS, BPS is not such a big factor - I suspect things would have been spelled out more clearly by patients if it had been. If you factor that in then I'm not sure the list is that different from ME - but the point is it's a list of MS priorities, not ME ones. Similarities/differences are interesting, but no more than that. Whereas the AfME list explicityly prioritises pathological pathways. Incidentally, the AfME list was based on a survey of poeple of whom 90% had ME. I wonder if the 6% choosing to prioritise psychological research came came disproportionately from the 10% who didn't have ME. I also wonder how big the contrast in results will be when AfME send the same survey to researchers. My ETA too: Good to hear, and I am very conscious of how everything could go wrong. It is at least a minor miracle that the CMRC ever came into being given the wildly diverging views represented within it (I gather the birthing pains were immense) and its ongoing existence will no doubt continue to be a 'challenge'. I'm sure there will be constant jockeying for position and attempts to take control of the agenda. That said, I think it has the potential to lead to more and better research in the UK than would have happened if it had never been created- and I think Stephen Holgate deserves immense credit for his work.