posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Htrowklis82
Both the National Cancer Institute and several pharmaceutical companies declined to pay for the research. Neither applicants nor funders discuss the
reasons an application is turned down. But good guesses are the general shortage of funds and the concept tried in this experiment was too novel and,
thus, too risky for consideration.
Sickening what these people do for greed and money!
The "lack of money" comes from "science funding was cut to the bone during the Bush administration (when this research first surfaced.)
Pharmaceutical companies generally fund their own research and any grants given to independent researchers are small.
Having tried for a number of grants, I can tell you that there's a LOT of scientists and very few grant opportunities. They give the money to those
with the most promising evidence. As of now, they have a small sample of just three people and no long-term studies.
Here's the list of nearly 800 things that were approved for grants
from the NIH
If you check the National Institute of Health, you
can see another thousand research trials taking place all over the country and checking out everything from complementary therapy to gene therapy.
There's a number of reasons why their grant may have failed to make:
* The money went to research that was already promising (in other words, proved in an animal model or in cell models and based on an active research
* They did a bad job of writing up the research proposal (this happens. Like I said, I've been involved with some of these and it's REALLY HARD to
write a proposal that's accepted.)
* They didn't have enough research data
* It hadn't been tested on any animal models or humans
If you were in charge of a fund of (say) a million dollars and you had 500 scientists ALL asking you to give them some money, are you going to hand
everyone $2,000 and say "go for it!" (that would fund about one week of research work, by the way) or will you select the two that you think are
most likely to succeed and give them enough money to do research for two years?
Grant organizations take the latter approach -- fund something for long enough to get results... not hand everyone enough money for a week's work and
say "okay! We're done!" Same with pharmaceutical companies.