Posted by David Glusman on June 07, 1999 at 13:16:36:
In Reply to: JDF posted by Mary E. on June 06, 1999 at 22:25:36:
It is apparent that many individuals still do not understand how JDF has determined what research to fund, and what directions to attempt to encourage. This process has, for the past 27 years, been based on discussions between the lay leadership of JDF and the Medical Science Advisory Board, the physician researchers. The intent has been, and continues to be, to encourage innovative research, to help move the learning curve along as quickly as science can absorb new issues, and to search for the “cures”. I use the multiple intentionally. For at least the past 10 years the goals has been to cure the complications, to find a way to eliminate new cases and to cure those with the disease. When research ideas come to JDF that are premature (scientifically), JDF has encouraged the scientists to take the necessary steps to make the research appear viable. I know this all, first hand; for 9 years from 1984 to 1993 I was involved in the decision making. For 6 of those years, as treasurer and vice president of finance, I read every successful grant application before I signed the research funding checks.
JDF has been on the cutting edge of many areas of research for most of the past 25 years, and as the parent of a 24 years old IDDM daughter (since age 1), I am quite satisfied (purely from an objective point of view) with the research and the use of the dollars I have helped raise. Sure, I’m more than a little frustrated on an emotional level, but emotions won’t cure my daughter, or reduce the likelihood that she’ll develop complications. Hard headed, objective research will do that. With all of the issues raised, JDF is still, in my opinion, the best research dollar (bang for the buck) anywhere today.