E-Letter responses to:

n-week: Jocelyn Kaiser U.S. BIOMEDICAL POLICY: Acting FDA Head Drops NCI Post Science 2005; 310: 29 [Summary] [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Off the mark

Joe Alper   (20 October 2005)

Off the mark 20 October 2005
Joe Alper, science writer and technology analyst self-employed Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Off the mark	I take issue with Jocelyn Kaiser's characterization of the NCI advisor's response to the Institute's technology-based initiatives as "lukewarm," which was made in her article titled, "Acting FDA Head Drops NCI Post." I have been involved to some extent in planning all three of the initiatives she mentioned, and while it is true that the initial response of NCI advisory boards were at first lukewarm to each of the three initial proposals, NCI staff responded to the advisory boards' concerns and returned with proposals that generated considerable excitment and plaudits from the advisory board members. Perhaps more telling has been the enthusiatic response of the research community - the same community whining about RO1 awards - to the NCI's recently awards Centers for Cancer Nanotechnolgy Excellence. While it may be true that success rates for obtaining RO1 research grants are declining - Kaiser does not cite any data to support that claim - perhaps we should ask the question of why RO1 awards are so sacrosanct given the criticism that the NCI was funding too much basic research and not enough translational, milestone- driven work designed to help patients rather than continued support for academic researchers in an era when research budgets are no longer doubling every five years. Joe Alper