Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
I just spotted this FOI response. It's from a request made by Geroge Jenson... great to have this info, but also, reading the request made me wish that George was a bit more cautious in the way things were phrased, and in the information provided. There's often no benefit in trying to engage in debate on the merits of PACE when all you need do is explain what info you want.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cfs_funding_yet_another_cbt_stud
The minutes are here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...6309/attach/3/July 2015 CET Board Minutes.pdf
They include:
I've been thinking about how researcher's reputations are important, and whether we could try to get information on how the reputation of researcher's like Crawley were assessed by bodies like this, the MRC, etc, and also enquire as to whether problems identified with their work have led to people considering her team to be less 'strong'. Any ideas on this?
Thanks to George for his work (my earlier praise being somewhat muted by fear). It's always interesting to see how these sorts of decisions are made.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cfs_funding_yet_another_cbt_stud
FOI 1081794
I can confirm that DH holds the information you requested. Documentation for the final
funding approval of the FITNET-NHS study is attached in the Board Meeting Minutes of the
Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme from July 2015. The HTA Board
reviewed the full application and recommended funding.
Please note that some names of individuals have been redacted from this document under
Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, which provides for the protection of
personal information.
The minutes are here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...6309/attach/3/July 2015 CET Board Minutes.pdf
They include:
The board provided the following feedback:
• The board noted that this was a good application from a strong team.
I've been thinking about how researcher's reputations are important, and whether we could try to get information on how the reputation of researcher's like Crawley were assessed by bodies like this, the MRC, etc, and also enquire as to whether problems identified with their work have led to people considering her team to be less 'strong'. Any ideas on this?
Thanks to George for his work (my earlier praise being somewhat muted by fear). It's always interesting to see how these sorts of decisions are made.