snowathlete
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,374
- Location
- UK
With the NIH starting to talk about a "jump" (I think that's the word Francis Collins used) in ME/CFS funding, this raises the question of how much funding we should get? And how might that differ from how much we will get?
NOTE: For clarity, the poll above is for how much you think we will get, not how much you think we should get.
Graham McPhee's excellent one and a half minute video on the topic of NIH funding of ME/CFS compared to other diseases over the last 25 years is worth another look:
Some have suggested (not sure of sources, sorry) that in accounting for the prevalence of ME/CFS and it's severity, and comparing that to other similar diseases funded already by NIH, that ME/CFS research should be funded at around $250M a year. Further, if you consider the current lack of any treatment at all, the fact the NIH is so late to the party having failed its duty toward us for decades, and the huge economic loss (~$20 billion a year, is that right?) this presents (which may well be reversible to a large degree were treatments made available), there is, I think, a case for this being far too little. Perhaps $1 billion a year would be more reasonable and logical.
Where's the money going to come from? As there appears to be around a 10% increase in funding (around $30 billion?) coming NIH's way, this actually makes it very easy for NIH to begin funding ME/CFS properly. £250M would not be impossible by any means as it is not as if they would have to cut existing funding elsewhere to make it happen.
Nevertheless, I don't imagine things will change all at once; more likely we will see a ramped increase over several years. But what might we actually get in terms of funding in the near future?
$50M might be enough to invigorate research into ME/CFS, get important findings happening and begin to attract new talent to ME/CFS research. I think anything less would be entirely inadequate and inappropriate. $50M is nothing really, in research terms. I'd feel more comfortable with double that initially as it would show true intent by NIH to begin fixing this situation.
In summary, although I think $1 billion is what they should spend, I think they're more likely to get $50M. What do you think?
NOTE: For clarity, the poll above is for how much you think we will get, not how much you think we should get.
NOTE: For clarity, the poll above is for how much you think we will get, not how much you think we should get.
Graham McPhee's excellent one and a half minute video on the topic of NIH funding of ME/CFS compared to other diseases over the last 25 years is worth another look:
Some have suggested (not sure of sources, sorry) that in accounting for the prevalence of ME/CFS and it's severity, and comparing that to other similar diseases funded already by NIH, that ME/CFS research should be funded at around $250M a year. Further, if you consider the current lack of any treatment at all, the fact the NIH is so late to the party having failed its duty toward us for decades, and the huge economic loss (~$20 billion a year, is that right?) this presents (which may well be reversible to a large degree were treatments made available), there is, I think, a case for this being far too little. Perhaps $1 billion a year would be more reasonable and logical.
Where's the money going to come from? As there appears to be around a 10% increase in funding (around $30 billion?) coming NIH's way, this actually makes it very easy for NIH to begin funding ME/CFS properly. £250M would not be impossible by any means as it is not as if they would have to cut existing funding elsewhere to make it happen.
Nevertheless, I don't imagine things will change all at once; more likely we will see a ramped increase over several years. But what might we actually get in terms of funding in the near future?
$50M might be enough to invigorate research into ME/CFS, get important findings happening and begin to attract new talent to ME/CFS research. I think anything less would be entirely inadequate and inappropriate. $50M is nothing really, in research terms. I'd feel more comfortable with double that initially as it would show true intent by NIH to begin fixing this situation.
In summary, although I think $1 billion is what they should spend, I think they're more likely to get $50M. What do you think?
NOTE: For clarity, the poll above is for how much you think we will get, not how much you think we should get.
Last edited: