X-Message-Number: 32761 Subject: Re: NIH grants for cryonics? From: David Stodolsky <> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:06:03 +0200 References: <> On 10 Aug 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote: > I wonder if it would be possible to get > an NIH grant to study the relative health, outlook, and metrics of > cryonicists vs. the general population? The chances of this are vanishingly small. The National Institute of Health (NIH) has the objective of improving people's health thru research. Let's say we were able to show that cryonicists' health was improved compared to others. Then, given current funding arrangements, a miniscule number of people would be able to improve their health by signing up. So, impact would be assessed as nil. Further, we would have to show that it is being a cryonicist, not less religious belief, better eating habits, etc. that was the cause of the improvement. So, there are substantial theoretical and practical difficulties in carrying out a study. The total absence of previous research makes hypothesis formulation uncertain. So, contribution to new knowledge would be in doubt. Given that the mainstream view of cryonics is that it is a form of quackery, funding possibilities are further reduced. Finally, given that no support for this kind of research has ever come from the cryonics community and the research that has been done gratis has been totally ignored, the environment for doing this research is inadequate. The well documented and continuing waste of research money within cryonics certainly offers no support for the potential application of any results. So, I could easily write a proposal along these lines, but it would be a total waste of time. There is no doubt that social environment has a substantial effect on the life span of cryonicists, as well as others. It is very likely that greater gains could be achieved for less money in this area than any other, since it has yet to be explored. However, without some support for this type of research within the community, that could show some interesting preliminary results, the chance of money from outside is small. In addition, with the type of support for marketing I have argued is essential to ensure the survival of suspendees, an argument could be made that this area will become important for a substantial population in the future. Given the current stagnation in growth, this argument is not available. dss http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-DA-11-003.html#SectionIV1 Scored Review Criteria Reviewers will consider each of the five review criteria below in the determination of scientific and technical merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field. Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field? Investigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project? Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed? Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed? Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? David Stodolsky Skype: davidstodolsky Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32761