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
