Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!bionet!PRESTO.IG.COM!kristoff From: kristoff@PRESTO.IG.COM (Dave Kristofferson) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.genome-program Subject: Re: Human Genome Project debate: reply to E. Jordan Message-ID: Date: 7 Jun 90 03:22:05 GMT Sender: daemon@genbank.BIO.NET Reply-To: gnome-pr@genbank.bio.net Lines: 66 I'll throw my two cents worth in on this part of the latest portion of the debate: > Elke Jordan and other HGP advocates have argued that the Human Genome > Project will be funded with "extra funds" or "new" money. This is > not convincing. I think it is as explained below. > What does "new" money mean, anyway? "New" money would be money that > could only be raised for the Human Genome Project. Not exclusively, but new money that might come in for APPLIED research which probably could not be obtained if one only tried to enhance BASIC research. > This means that no matter how hard the > administration and the scientific community lobbied, they could not convince > Congress to come up with another dime for the NIH, unless designated for the > Human Genome Project. How can anyone claim this knowledge? Where is the > evidence? Who believes it? Obviously one can not state "a priori" that no amount of lobbying would help get additional grants for basic research, but ***let's not get this extreme***. I think the point, at least as I have heard it, is that the Congress expects more immediate benefits to come out of the sequence of the genome than they might expect to get out of basic research. I'm sure that many might (and undoubtedly will) debate this point, but I believe that it is an easier "sell" to Congress, i.e., one is looking at the old issue of applied research with a more immediate economic return versus pure research with a more long term outlook (often with no obvious economic return). If this is indeed how the funding situation is viewed (and I do not claim to speak with any authority here), then I would submit that one might have to argue far longer and with much greater vigor to get additional money out of Congress for basic research than for a project in which more near-term benefits will result. In this sense the Genome Project *IS* new money. Of course, if one has other applied projects in mind with similar expected economic returns, then one might be able to get these "new" funds by lobbying for those projects. However, I highly doubt that you'll make it with a "Non-Targeted Investigator-Initiated Grant Initiative." 8-) In this sense there would be little doubt (at least in my little brain!) that the Genome project would attract new money. For all of my love of basic research I think that most of us are aware of the vast amount of space occupied by basic research papers in dusty journals on library shelves. Basic research is always a higher risk proposition. I'm sure that this fact also has something to do with why Congress does not give the entire GNP to the NIH. Frankly, having been in both academics and industry, I would really like to see more cooperation in the U.S. between the government, academia, and industry. Perhaps we could learn from the Japanese in this regards. Instead, we beat each other up as witnessed by the current debate, drive wedges between the various parties and worry about "conflicts of interest" while other countries forge ahead of us. The stupidity of it depresses me to no end. Dave Kristofferson IntelliGenetics, Inc.