Tweet
AIBS Research Panel Selection
I'm thrilled to share some "Inside the ICN" good news. Last July, I was contacted by the American Institute of Biologic Sciences to ask if I would be interested in serving on a peer review panel for IC research for the 2011 fiscal year. My answer, of course, was "Yes! How can I help?" I'll confess that I was very excited to be given the opportunity to participate. I completed an extensive application and found out two weeks later that I had been selected as the sole patient representative. While it was a tremendous honor, It was also an eye opening journey into the heart and soul of how research studies are selected.
The Department of Defense (DoD) Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program for Fiscal Year 2011 allocates $50,000,000 per year for the study of various medical conditions relevent to military readiness. Because interstitial cystitis is being diagnosed at somewhat alarming rates in returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, research into new diagnostic methods and treatments are a high priority along with, of course, several other conditions such as chronic migraine and post traumatic headache, drug abuse, dystonia, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, neuroblastoma and others.
The IC committee consisted of six members, two physicians, three PhD researchers and myself. I had about three weeks to review eleven 100+ page research applications which I gave various scores too. In mid September, the committee as a whole met to review our scores and generate a summary. Our recommendations are then given to the final committee of military representatives who make the actual allocations. While the other reviewers were assigned three studies, I had to review ALL elevent and provide comments about their impact on the IC patient community. I was then required to defend my position and scores. Not easy mind you when you're working with world class researchers and physicians. The committee meeting was alternately tense, invigorating, intimidating and inspiring.
The eleven studies were diverse, fascinating and, sadly, I can't talk about them due to a confidentiality agreement. What I will say is that the IC research movement is moving quickly and with great promise. I'd like to thank the staff at AIBS and my fellow committee members for the honor of participating this year. It was my privilege to participate.
I'm thrilled to share some "Inside the ICN" good news. Last July, I was contacted by the American Institute of Biologic Sciences to ask if I would be interested in serving on a peer review panel for IC research for the 2011 fiscal year. My answer, of course, was "Yes! How can I help?" I'll confess that I was very excited to be given the opportunity to participate. I completed an extensive application and found out two weeks later that I had been selected as the sole patient representative. While it was a tremendous honor, It was also an eye opening journey into the heart and soul of how research studies are selected.
The Department of Defense (DoD) Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program for Fiscal Year 2011 allocates $50,000,000 per year for the study of various medical conditions relevent to military readiness. Because interstitial cystitis is being diagnosed at somewhat alarming rates in returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, research into new diagnostic methods and treatments are a high priority along with, of course, several other conditions such as chronic migraine and post traumatic headache, drug abuse, dystonia, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, neuroblastoma and others.
The IC committee consisted of six members, two physicians, three PhD researchers and myself. I had about three weeks to review eleven 100+ page research applications which I gave various scores too. In mid September, the committee as a whole met to review our scores and generate a summary. Our recommendations are then given to the final committee of military representatives who make the actual allocations. While the other reviewers were assigned three studies, I had to review ALL elevent and provide comments about their impact on the IC patient community. I was then required to defend my position and scores. Not easy mind you when you're working with world class researchers and physicians. The committee meeting was alternately tense, invigorating, intimidating and inspiring.
The eleven studies were diverse, fascinating and, sadly, I can't talk about them due to a confidentiality agreement. What I will say is that the IC research movement is moving quickly and with great promise. I'd like to thank the staff at AIBS and my fellow committee members for the honor of participating this year. It was my privilege to participate.
I've found answers...so can you...keep the hope.
Comment