On the other side of the research house is the federal grant-making process for research.  Today the New York Times runs a critique of the National Cancer Institute’s grant-making process.    (NCI is part of the National Institutes of Health, which received significant new funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.)  

The gravamen of the story is that NCI is funding research that is”safe” and unlikely to provide much in the way of advances for cancer prevention or cures.  ”It has become a sort of jobs program, a way to keep research laboratories going year after year with the understanding that the focus will be on small projects unlikely to make significant steps toward curing cancer,” says the New York Times.

My favorite research topic on NCI’s website: “Arctic.”  Some studies you might not want to look at if you’re hoping to find a cure for cancer: “Management of Insomnia in Cancer Patients” and “Spousal Support, Emotional Disclosure, and Adjustment to Head and Neck Cancer,”  I, of course, am cherry picking, but even a cursory review of funded projects suggests that NCI is not funding much high risk/high reward research.

It is very important that NCI spend its money wisely because it provides far more money than any other organization for cancer research.  By comparison to NCI’s $105 billion since 1971, the American Cancer Society has spent $3.4 billion since 1946, according to the New York Times.

Meanwhile … people are dying.

28 June 2009.  Further reading from the same edition of the New York Times: “New Treatment for Cancer Shows Promise in Testing.”   From where are the lead researchers?  Australia.