No Raves for NIH Grants

NM EXCLUSIVE: Research programs that could benefit the health of Americans were denied funding by the National Institutes of Health in favor of politically-correct scientifically dubious projects, including "Patterns of Drug Use and Abuse in Brazilian Rave Culture," "The Impact of Dragon Boat Racing on Cancer Survivorship," and "The Healing of the Canoe."

Research programs that could benefit the health of Americans were denied funding by the National Institutes of Health in favor of politically-correct scientifically dubious projects, including "The Impact of Dragon Boat Racing on Cancer Survivorship" and "The Healing of the Canoe."

"Given the number of urgent public health issues facing the NIH, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and pandemic disease, we question how peer review panels determined these projects to have 'high scientific caliber' and how they are particularly relevant to the NIH Institute and Center research priorities," wrote Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), in a letter to Dr. Francis S. Collins, director of the NIH, which was obtained by NewMajority.

This year the NIH received over $40 billion from taxpayers, including $10 billion from the 2009 stimulus package, from which it provided grants for:

• "Impact of Dragon Boat Racing on Cancer Survivorship," which examines whether dragon boat paddling will enhance the lives of cancer survivors more than just walking.
• "Substance Use and HIV Risk Among Thai Women," which studies the use of drugs among male-to-female transgendered sex workers in Bangkok.
• "The Healing of the Canoe," which investigates the need for an “increased cultural and community identity” among the Suquamish Tribe.
• "Patterns of Drug Use and Abuse in Brazilian Rave Culture," which scrutinizes the use of drugs in clubs located in the south of Brazil.

After pointing out the egregious grants that the NIH has approved, the two ranking members demanded an explanation as to how each grant met the criteria for the NIH’s funding priorities within four weeks.

What puzzles ranking members Barton and Walden is the fact that the NIH claims to have enhanced its peer review process to require that grants each address an “important problem”. Yet stimulus funding that could have otherwise gone towards research that saves lives has instead been used so that researchers can hang out with drug-users at raves in São Paulo. It appears that, despite supposedly stricter standards, the NIH doesn’t see it fit to excuse itself from the trough.