If ME/CFS research got £1 billion, what would stop it being wasted?

Utsikt said:
I don’t think it should be limited to biomed, that would create undue bias. It should, however, be limited to studies of the highest research standards. That would effectively ban 99.9% of current BPS and biomed researchers.

I hope virtually unlimited funding would entice some good researchers to join the field.
Click to expand...

Since so many millions have already been spent on psychoquackery it isn’t bias, they have had their fill and biomedical needs to keep up.
 
Could an x-prize system be applied? Find a clinical biomarker, provide strong evidence that some mechanism causes some aspect of ME, find a reliable treatment. even if it doesn't lead to a valuable patent?

I think much of the problem is the lack of motivation to accomplish anything other than buffing their citations.
 
Chestnut tree said:
Since so many millions have already been spent on psychoquackery it isn’t bias, they have had their fill and biomedical needs to keep up.
Click to expand...

I’ve started just calling it Psycho. That being said, I still believe that we shouldn’t discriminate based on the subject, we should discriminate based on the quality of the proposed research project.
 
V.R.T. said:
Except they don't have effective treatments, they have a bag of magic beans and a very nice invisible shirt.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. But they don’t know that, or they refuse to acknowledge it.

V.R.T. said:
If we have scientific proof of physical processes going awry and causing the symptoms and the opportunity to treat them the situation changes considerably.
Click to expand...

In principle, yes. But the HIV patients had to riot to get anyone to listen. They had plenty of proof. So I’m pessimistic.
 
Creekside said:
Could an x-prize system be applied?
Click to expand...

Would someone keen to win an X Prize be likely to be sharp and intellectually honest?
For me the satisfaction of science was discovering that something works the way you thought it might. The amazing thing is that when it does, it does it better than you could have ever imagined it could.

The right motivation is largely a matter of personality, not money or gongs, I think. There are some very motivated people in the field now.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
For me the satisfaction of science was discovering that something works the way you thought it might. The amazing thing is that when it does, it does it better than you could have ever imagined it could.
Click to expand...

I imagine Landmark, Wyller, etc. believe that they have discovered how something works. Chasing «I know something» is a slippery slope that requires an ironclad integrity to navigate properly. And you need the wits to know when you don’t know something, as well as an extreme openness to the unknown unknowns.
 
Utsikt said:
And you need the wits to know when you don’t know something, as well as an extreme openness to the unknown unknowns.
Click to expand...

Yes. Maybe I should have added to my last sentence:
The amazing thing is that when it does, it does it better than you could have ever imagined it could, but through specific mechanisms completely different from what you had initially expected.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Would someone keen to win an X Prize be likely to be sharp and intellectually honest?
For me the satisfaction of science was discovering that something works the way you thought it might. The amazing thing is that when it does, it does it better than you could have ever imagined it could.

The right motivation is largely a matter of personality, not money or gongs, I think. There are some very motivated people in the field now.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the goal would be that money motivates people to solve problems. As you’ve already said, that simply doesn’t attract the right kind of people with the right king of motivation and since the problem is sufficiently hard those are the people you’d want. I think the point is more so to spread a general kind of awareness for the existence of an intriguing problem that is worth working on and that is what prize-money could potentially do. The money then becomes irrelevant. Whether that actually works I am sceptical and it might even backfire. I would think there are more meaningful ways to accomplish some awareness for the existence of a problem worth working on.
 
Sasha said:
If ME/CFS research was to suddenly get a massive cash injection, what could it be done to stop it being wasted, for example on BPS nonsense or poor-quality biomedical research?
Click to expand...

Let s4me allocate it over time (say a period of 10-15 years).

I don't really have great hopes otherwise. LongCOVID has set things backwards rather than forwards.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
The right motivation is largely a matter of personality, not money or gongs, I think.
Click to expand...
I am increasingly of the view that prizes and gongs are seriously distorting the research system across all of science, and we would be better off without any of it.
Snow Leopard said:
Let s4me allocate it over time (say a period of 10-15 years).

I don't really have great hopes otherwise. LongCOVID has set things backwards rather than forwards.
Click to expand...
In the short-term it has given the psycho-behavioural school an opening they don't deserve with their quick-fix low-cost individual-responsibility oriented non-answers that general society and the political & economic classes find so appealing when dealing with such a complex, opaque, and serious problem.

But the reality of what has happened does seem to be slowly sinking into the medical scientific community.
 
Snow Leopard said:
I don't really have great hopes otherwise. LongCOVID has set things backwards rather than forwards.
Click to expand...

Sean said:
But the reality of what has happened does seem to be slowly sinking into the medical scientific community.
Click to expand...

I’m leaning more towards Sean here. Mostly because LC is becoming such a massive problem that it will be impossible to ignore at some point. The politicians are really trying their best to not take action, but LC has to be solved eventually. That will benefit ME/CFS, because you can’t solve LC without also solving ME/CFS (because Covid can cause ME/CFS).
 
Utsikt said:
I’m leaning more towards Sean here. Mostly because LC is becoming such a massive problem that it will be impossible to ignore at some point. The politicians are really trying their best to not take action, but LC has to be solved eventually. That will benefit ME/CFS, because you can’t solve LC without also solving ME/CFS (because Covid can cause ME/CFS).
Click to expand...

Society has been ignoring growing disabilities (prevalence) of all types for years now, LC is not much different in that regard.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Would someone keen to win an X Prize be likely to be sharp and intellectually honest?
Click to expand...
I was thinking about it as a filter against studies that are likely to be unproductive, but done just because they use the keywords that get funding. If the problem is that the people distributing the funding are terrible judges of what sort of research might be productive, then I'm not sure that they'd be any better at setting x-prize goals. Also, x-prizes are intended for groups who can raise investment by promising returns (cheap launch services, better storage batteries, etc), and ME research doesn't really fit that. The present system that rewards unproductive work is a failure.
 
Snow Leopard said:
Because instead of learning from the past, old mistakes are being repeated and COVID/LongCOVID is soaking up much of the research funding and spending it on poorly designed studies.
Click to expand...
And that is worse because…?

It just sounds like the same as before except now you have maybe 1 in 100 LC studies generating useful data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom