Posted by Al Gordon on February 27, 1999 at 12:07:01:
In Reply to: DRWG Report - Questions posted by Sandy Donchess on February 26, 1999 at 22:22:09:
Sandy,
Those are great questions you're asking. Here are my thoughts:
1. I believe the DRWG report will definitely be a funding guide, if not a definitive bible. I have found that the NIH leadership loves to quote from previous documents, such as the DCCT study, as if to say, "All those issues have been settled" and to thereby stifle further debate.
2. My understanding is that funding decisions are made exclusively by NIH personnel. There does not appear to be the equivalent of the Lay Review Committee at JDF, an organization that assures that the interests of people with diabetes are served above and beyond the interests of funded researchers.
3. I think Congress would be the best avenue, but also Dr Ronald Kahn (Chairman of DRWG - kahnr_AT_joslab.harvard.edu)and Dr Hugh McDevitt (Head of the Type 1 Diabetes Subgroup - mk.mcd_AT_forsythe.stanford.edu). Each has his own area of interest, which invariably colors somewhat how he sees priorities. Dr Kahn's interest is type 2 diabetes, and Dr. McDevitt's interest is immunology. Of course, OUR only interest is getting to clinical trials as quickly as possible.
4. See '3' above. I would also recommend writing to Dr. Doug Melton (dmelton_AT_biohp.harvard.edu) who is a member of DRWG and has a clear interest in curing diabetes above anything else.
5. Absolutely! I think the key message to Congress must be "Increased funding is NO measure of success. Your could triple the diabetes budget and accomplish nothing. Only through leadership that is focussed exclusively on curing diabetes in the short term will there be any progress. We are close to a cure, and only focussed, applied research will get us there. More behavioral or basic research is the wrong venue at this stage."
Our opinions must be made known to the architects of diabetes research. After all, we're the customers!
Al