once more, from a prestigious general science journal:

“…a national system of medical research, broadly based in the universities and scientific institutions, which exerts a pervasive influence on the whole scene of medical education and health services…The rapid expansion of federal support for research has created a mutual dependency among the federal government, the universities, and the scientists of this nation…through the federal government, the universities, and the scientists have all prospered…the problem is to fashion the terms of the relationship in a manner that acknowledges the mutual dependence among the three parties and, at the same time, respects the integrity of their respective responsibilities, without distortion…arbitrary subordination and without interference….In the past year or so, concern over the possibility of an absolute decline or a diminished emphasis in federal support for basic research in biomedical sciences has been widely expressed. Is there a real basis for concern?…It is regrettable that current apprehensions and cross currents force us to talk about basic research, applied research, application of knowledge, and delivery of services as though they were quite separable and perhaps even mutually exclusive interests. “

oooh, this IS a good one. Any guesses as to when it was published?

More fun with dates!

June 6, 2012

again, from a prestigious general science journal:

“Funds for the NIH…..this is a smaller increase than the NIH has become habituated to….[NIH will] give emphasis to the development of enlarged medical schools…..the rate of increase in funds for research has leveled off at NIH in late years….chances for major increases would appear to be slim”

Ball park that date, dear Reader!

Date these comments!

June 6, 2012

from a prestigious general science journal:

“Important elements in both Senate and the House are showing increasing dissatisfaction over Congress’s decade-long honeymoon with medical research….critics are dissatisfied…with the NIH’s procedures for supervising the use of money by its research grantees….NIH officials..argued, rather, that the most productive method in financing research is to pick good people with good projects and let them carry out their work without encumbering them…its growth has been phenomenal….[NIH director}: nor do we believe that most scientific groups in the country have an asking and a selling price for their product which is research activity…we get a realistic appraisal of what they need to do the job..the supervisory function properly belongs to the universities and other institutions where the research takes place….closing remarks of the report are:…Congress has been overzealous in appropriating money for health research”.

Okay, people, ballpark the date this was published!