The NIH AND CFS: Following the Neuroimmune Grant For CFS - Making the Breakthrough? Or More of the Same? by Cort Johnson
As part of a series of papers designed to explore the problems of public funding and CFS research we take a look at the recent Request For Applications (RFA) grant for CFS research by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). RFA's are one time grants devoted to specific areas of research; this one, for $4,000,000, is on neuroimmune mechanisms in CFS.
Since private research groups can only raise a fraction of the money that public funding does it is critical that an appropriate slice of the public funding pie be available for CFS researchers. This has not been true in the past. While the NIH budget virtually doubled since 2000 funding for CFS has declined. The reasons for this decline and for the inadequacy of public funding for CFS research will be examined in a series of papers. First, however, the Neuroimmune research grant gives us a chance to see the NIH in action.
This grant, the first of its kind I am aware of, was greeted with enthusiasm by the CFS community, and rightly so; it provides a solid increase in funding for CFS over the next couple of years and funnels money into an increasingly intriguing arena of study that has, thus far, barely been touched in CFS.
Part One: Beginnings - The Neuroimmune Mechanisms Conference of 2003; An Overview - The Neuroimmune Conference of 2003 sponsored by the NIH was the kickoff for the Neuroimmune Request for Applications (RFA). The RFA was promised around the time of the conference but didn't actually come to fruition until two years later. Indeed it took two years for the Office for Research Into Women's Health (ORWH) to even print the conference proceedings. This did not appear to present a strong degree of commitment to this issue. These proceedings give us an idea of the type of research the NIH believes is relevant in CFS.
Part Two: Reading the Grant - A close read of the Neuroimmune RFA illustrates it has strengths and weaknesses. It shows, for instance, that the this RFA is entirely designed to examine CFS pathophysiology, not psychology. It also brings up some questions; is the grant specifically for CFS or can it be used for other disorders? will it necessarily be used to fund new studies? and what does the NIH mean when they say 'stress'? Click here to take a closer look at this grant.
Part Three: Reviewing the Reviewers - The panels that review the applications for CFS research have been a source of controversy. As CFS advocates have watched grant rewards for CFS decline they have leveled charges of bias and incompetence against the review panels and their organizer, Dr. Hofford, Click here for a short history of the CFS Special Emphasis Panel (CFS SEP) and for an assessment of the makeup of the new panel for the Neuroimmune RFA.
Part Four: Conclusion - Assessing the Grants - How did the NIH do? How many grants were funded? How much money was spent? Were the topics relevant to CFS? Were CFS researchers used? Three years later how did this major effort by the NIH turn out? This paper answers all these questions and suggests reasons why the RFA ended up as it did.