• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

NIH rejecting ME/CFS research applications 'because they're not good enough' - help me find quote!

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
A couple of CFSACs ago - that awful one where our patient rep got so distressed about the way she felt threatened - I think the NIH rep (?) said that ME/CFS biomedical research applications were getting turned down because of their poor quality (!).

I think I also heard someone at that meeting (Dr Fletcher?) or elsewhere (Dr Klimas?) say that lots of their research in their other disease areas (such as HIV) get funded by the NIH - it's only when they apply for ME/CFS grants that they get rejected.

Can anyone direct me to quotes or to Youtube footage (preferably telling me roughly when it comes up)?

Thanks! :)
 

vli

Senior Member
Messages
653
Location
CA
Sasha, I'm not aware of this but I'll go through the old CFSACs and try to find them for you. (I will start from - 2011?)
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
Sasha, I'm not aware of this but I'll go through the old CFSACs and try to find them for you. (I will start from - 2011?)

Thanks! Pretty sure this came up at the Spring 2013 CFSAC.

I wonder if anyone does transcripts of them? :eek: Then it would be a matter of just searching through the doc for 'NIH'.

@jspotila - does this ring any bells with you? If you're seeing this after 24 hours, forget I asked - it's for a piece of writing and I don't have long to do it.
 

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
Minutes of May 2013 meeting where NIH gives their update: http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/meetings/minutes/cfsacmay23_final_508.pdf

Dr. Mayer of the NIH - quotes from May2013 CFSAC meeting:

In order to increase the amount of funds that are spent on ME/CFS research, there needs to be
an increase in the number of applications sent into NIH with well-crafted hypotheses, thoughtful
and diligent experimental design, and careful attention to the science behind the application
and the translational impact of the experimental outcome to the clinical realm.

and

A request for applications (RFA) is a type of mechanism that’s used at NIH that has a specific
amount of money set for that topic area. Even though an RFA has an amount of money set
aside, that does not mean that every single application submitted will be paid. Every application
has to go through scientific or technical merit review and every application is scored for its
scientific merit, for its procedural aspects, and for its approach and its relevance to the field.

In answer to a question -

Dr. Maier: Yes. Luckily, the money does not go back to the Treasury. The money would go toward
other research at the institutes and centers that contributed. When you put in an RFA for a specific
topic area and you assign it a certain amount of money, if you don’t get sufficient applications submitted 9

and/or the applications that were submitted do not score well in a scientific or merit review, then that
indicates that there are not enough people in field, the topic is not interesting, or the people did not ask
the right questions. You can imagine thinking as a funding agency: “We set aside $4 million and we only
spent $2.6 million, and it was well spent on those projects, but why weren’t there more projects? Why
didn’t they score well? Should we really invest again in this particular topic area?” That doesn’t mean
that another topic area might not be appropriate to invest in. It just means that for that particular
narrow topic, it wasn’t, at that point, the right one.

(hope this helps)






Minutes of May 2013 meeting where NIH gives their update: http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/meetings/minutes/cfsacmay23_final_508.pdf

Dr. Mayer of the NIH - quotes from May2013 CFSAC meeting:

In order to increase the amount of funds that are spent on ME/CFS research, there needs to be
an increase in the number of applications sent into NIH with well-crafted hypotheses, thoughtful
and diligent experimental design, and careful attention to the science behind the application
and the translational impact of the experimental outcome to the clinical realm.

and

A request for applications (RFA) is a type of mechanism that’s used at NIH that has a specific
amount of money set for that topic area. Even though an RFA has an amount of money set
aside, that does not mean that every single application submitted will be paid. Every application
has to go through scientific or technical merit review and every application is scored for its
scientific merit, for its procedural aspects, and for its approach and its relevance to the field.

In answer to a question -

Dr. Maier: Yes. Luckily, the money does not go back to the Treasury. The money would go toward
other research at the institutes and centers that contributed. When you put in an RFA for a specific
topic area and you assign it a certain amount of money, if you don’t get sufficient applications submitted 9

and/or the applications that were submitted do not score well in a scientific or merit review, then that
indicates that there are not enough people in field, the topic is not interesting, or the people did not ask
the right questions. You can imagine thinking as a funding agency: “We set aside $4 million and we only
spent $2.6 million, and it was well spent on those projects, but why weren’t there more projects? Why
didn’t they score well? Should we really invest again in this particular topic area?” That doesn’t mean
that another topic area might not be appropriate to invest in. It just means that for that particular
narrow topic, it wasn’t, at that point, the right one.

Dr. Casillas: Is there any priority or preference in regard to which agencies are funding this project or

Minutes of May 2013 meeting where NIH gives their update: http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/meetings/minutes/cfsacmay23_final_508.pdf

Dr. Mayer of the NIH - quotes from May2013 CFSAC meeting:

In order to increase the amount of funds that are spent on ME/CFS research, there needs to be
an increase in the number of applications sent into NIH with well-crafted hypotheses, thoughtful
and diligent experimental design, and careful attention to the science behind the application
and the translational impact of the experimental outcome to the clinical realm.

and

A request for applications (RFA) is a type of mechanism that’s used at NIH that has a specific
amount of money set for that topic area. Even though an RFA has an amount of money set
aside, that does not mean that every single application submitted will be paid. Every application
has to go through scientific or technical merit review and every application is scored for its
scientific merit, for its procedural aspects, and for its approach and its relevance to the field.

In answer to a question -

Dr. Maier: Yes. Luckily, the money does not go back to the Treasury. The money would go toward
other research at the institutes and centers that contributed. When you put in an RFA for a specific
topic area and you assign it a certain amount of money, if you don’t get sufficient applications submitted 9

and/or the applications that were submitted do not score well in a scientific or merit review, then that
indicates that there are not enough people in field, the topic is not interesting, or the people did not ask
the right questions. You can imagine thinking as a funding agency: “We set aside $4 million and we only
spent $2.6 million, and it was well spent on those projects, but why weren’t there more projects? Why
didn’t they score well? Should we really invest again in this particular topic area?” That doesn’t mean
that another topic area might not be appropriate to invest in. It just means that for that particular
narrow topic, it wasn’t, at that point, the right one.

Dr. Casillas: Is there any priority or preference in regard to which agencies are funding this project or

Minutes of May 2013 meeting where NIH gives their update: http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/meetings/minutes/cfsacmay23_final_508.pdf

Dr. Mayer of the NIH - quotes from May2013 CFSAC meeting:

In order to increase the amount of funds that are spent on ME/CFS research, there needs to be
an increase in the number of applications sent into NIH with well-crafted hypotheses, thoughtful
and diligent experimental design, and careful attention to the science behind the application
and the translational impact of the experimental outcome to the clinical realm.

and

A request for applications (RFA) is a type of mechanism that’s used at NIH that has a specific
amount of money set for that topic area. Even though an RFA has an amount of money set
aside, that does not mean that every single application submitted will be paid. Every application
has to go through scientific or technical merit review and every application is scored for its
scientific merit, for its procedural aspects, and for its approach and its relevance to the field.

In answer to a question -

Dr. Maier: Yes. Luckily, the money does not go back to the Treasury. The money would go toward
other research at the institutes and centers that contributed. When you put in an RFA for a specific
topic area and you assign it a certain amount of money, if you don’t get sufficient applications submitted 9

and/or the applications that were submitted do not score well in a scientific or merit review, then that
indicates that there are not enough people in field, the topic is not interesting, or the people did not ask
the right questions. You can imagine thinking as a funding agency: “We set aside $4 million and we only
spent $2.6 million, and it was well spent on those projects, but why weren’t there more projects? Why
didn’t they score well? Should we really invest again in this particular topic area?” That doesn’t mean
that another topic area might not be appropriate to invest in. It just means that for that particular
narrow topic, it wasn’t, at that point, the right one.

Dr. Casillas: Is there any priority or preference in regard to which agencies are funding this project or

Minutes of May 2013 meeting where NIH gives their update: http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/meetings/minutes/cfsacmay23_final_508.pdf

Dr. Mayer of the NIH - quotes from May2013 CFSAC meeting:

In order to increase the amount of funds that are spent on ME/CFS research, there needs to be
an increase in the number of applications sent into NIH with well-crafted hypotheses, thoughtful
and diligent experimental design, and careful attention to the science behind the application
and the translational impact of the experimental outcome to the clinical realm.

and

A request for applications (RFA) is a type of mechanism that’s used at NIH that has a specific
amount of money set for that topic area. Even though an RFA has an amount of money set
aside, that does not mean that every single application submitted will be paid. Every application
has to go through scientific or technical merit review and every application is scored for its
scientific merit, for its procedural aspects, and for its approach and its relevance to the field.

In answer to a question -

Dr. Maier: Yes. Luckily, the money does not go back to the Treasury. The money would go toward
other research at the institutes and centers that contributed. When you put in an RFA for a specific
topic area and you assign it a certain amount of money, if you don’t get sufficient applications submitted 9

and/or the applications that were submitted do not score well in a scientific or merit review, then that
indicates that there are not enough people in field, the topic is not interesting, or the people did not ask
the right questions. You can imagine thinking as a funding agency: “We set aside $4 million and we only
spent $2.6 million, and it was well spent on those projects, but why weren’t there more projects? Why
didn’t they score well? Should we really invest again in this particular topic area?” That doesn’t mean
that another topic area might not be appropriate to invest in. It just means that for that particular
narrow topic, it wasn’t, at that point, the right one.

Dr. Casillas: Is there any priority or preference in regard to which agencies are funding this project or
 

acer2000

Senior Member
Messages
818
I think I remember Dr. Lipkin commenting on how they didn't approve his first grant proposal for the micro biome study at the Stanford meeting. This seems like a big contradiction given that Columbia probably is pretty good at writing grants and CFSAC stated rational of "not funding because they don't get any good grant proposals". Not too sure of the details or current status, however.
 
Last edited: