This week’s SCIENCE magazine
notes that the NIH is committing $17M to a program to evaluate the role of
extracellular RNA (exRNA). Obviously a variety of RNA types including miRNA,
siRNA, piRNA, lncRNAs as well as conventional messenger RNAs play key roles
within mammalian cells. In certain lower organisms like nematodes there is good
evidence for cell-to cell transfer of functional siRNA. However, in mammals the
exRNA story is very muddy indeed. While cells shed various RNAs enclosed in
membranous structures called exosomes, there is no evidence that this material
has any function whatsoever (cells shed lots of stuff, most of which is just
debris). So how did exRNA get to be a NIH funding priority? What will be the
contribution to human health?
This is somewhat reminiscent
of the recent commitment of $100M federal funds to the “Brain Activity
Map’. The initial
energy and organization for this concept came from non-neuroscientists and from
private groups such as the Kavli Foundation. So how did the BAM get to be an
NIH priority? (http://scienceforthefuture.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-brain-activity-map-bam-pluses-and.html)
These
episodes illustrate the byzantine process by which funding priorities are set
at the NIH and presumably at other federal funding agencies. The usual process
is that NIH staffers seek advice from certain scientists about future funding
needs. The scientists consulted are often ones who have devoted a lot of time
to service on NIH study sections (grant review groups) and who are therefore
well known to the staffers. No doubt the consultants are good scientists,
however they may not be representative of their fields and they certainly will
have their own interests to pursue. It is well known in the academic community
that the surest way to get a research grant is to be involved in writing the
RFP (Request for Proposals) in that area. Thus funding priority decisions are
made in a very murky and nontransparent manner somewhat similar to the
old-style politics of ‘smoke filled rooms’.
Surely
in this age of near instantaneous communication there must be a better way to
set funding priorities. For example, why not let the NIH convene panels of
experts in various areas and give them a day or so to make some initial
recommendations for new areas to fund. The recommendations, as well as the
names of the panel members, could be posted on the internet and the larger
scientific community allowed to comment. At some point a decision would need to
be made by NIH staff, but at least broader input would be achieved. Additionally,
the entire scientific community, not just a few ‘insiders’, would know that an
area of research was under consideration for increased funding. Its time for a
little sunlight to penetrate the darkness of NIH prioritizations.
No comments:
Post a Comment