Even noting that Nacul and Bansal were turned down, I still find the approach a bit of head twister - WT is a relatively open organisation offering £16bn in grants over the next decade with a nominal £1bn per defined scheme:
Find a scheme with at least one scheme a reasonable fit for ME/CFS research:
"Wellcome Discovery Awards
This scheme provides funding for established researchers and teams from any discipline who want to pursue bold and creative research ideas to deliver significant shifts in understanding that could improve human life, health and wellbeing.
Duration of funding:
Usually 8 years, but may be less for some disciplines, and may only be longer if held on a part-time basis.
Scale of funding:
You should ask for the resources you need for your research programme – see the 'What we offer' section on this page. You will need to justify this in your application."
Is the argument that ME/CFS research projects should get a free pass when it comes to 'justification', or that WT should alter its financial planning for a £1.6bn annual spend to give something extra to ME/CFS, because 'that's fair' ? Or is the argument seriously that 'they've got £29bn - give us some of that" ? Maybe the accountants left a couple a £mil in petty cash ?
Lets hope the jumping up and down has worked - but I find it hard to reconcile the approach with the target, it just seems too mismatched.
In the end Welcome is only going to fund research in which it has confidence, it's only going to fund researchers it has confidence in, and its only going to fund projects that fit with its corporate ambition. Maybe WT is sham-able over ME/CFS neglect, though I don't see how it has any corporate responsibility but there have to be good projects to be funded, with researchers able to provide convincing applications which meet WT's corporate principles.