snowathlete
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,374
- Location
- UK
Dr. Hanna noted that the NIH review process requires a testable hypothesis and researchers must explain how they will accomplish the study. Research proposals must rank in a respectable percentile to be funded. CFS research at NIH will only grow if more grant applications are submitted, accepted, and funded.
(1st CFSAC meeting minutes, Sept 2003)
If this info is still applicable in 2015 then I think this shows a big part of the problem; what Dr Davis is proposing, as I understand it, is a new aproach to disease research: test absolutely everything that technology allows. Normally you have a hypotehsis and your aproach is quite narrow as a result, and that aproach may have made sense in the past, but we've reached a point where you can take a sample and find out everything there is to know about it and it is affordable to do that. It suggest that the NIH is behind the times in this regard, because such an approach doesn't require a theory about what's wrong. You simple look at the results and see what is wrong. That might tell you directly what is wrong, or it may only tell you where to look. It also potentially gives you a useable biomarker you can use for diagnosis. It's hard to see how such outcomes wouldn't be a leap forward.