…and this is a 
Science budgets are tight all over, and we're all stretched thin. Where to make budget cuts that will harm science the least? Here's a sensible proposal: cut all the programs that have a bad track record and don't support good science:
Here's my proposal: save over $240 million per year in the NIH budget by cutting all funding for the two centers that fund alternative medicine research--the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and the Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine (OCCAM). Both of them exist primarily to promote pseudoscience. For the current year, NCCAM's budget is $128.8 million, an amount that has rapidly grown from $2 million in 1992, despite the fact that not a single "alternative" therapy supported by NCCAM has proven beneficial to health. OCCAM's budget was $121 million in 2008 (the latest I could find) and presumably higher in 2010. That's over $240M, not counting money these programs got from the stimulus package (and yes, they did get some stimulus funding).
Wow, a simple decision that save NIH by $240 million. How can they not go for it?
We can also get local. The University of Minnesota is also hurting for money. Our dear president Bruininks sent out a budget message this past spring talking about diminishing state support and saying that "we must continue to set clear priorities and invest our resources accordingly. Instead of trimming the budgets of working departments, why not kill our university boondoggle, The Center for Spirituality and Healing? We're throwing away money on quackery right now.
Medicine & Health
Education
Comments
Posted by: JJ
|
June 17, 2010 11:38 AM
Yeah, but the cut the Paranormal Department in Ghostbusters, and then look what happened: hot dog eating ghosts running rampant, and a demi-god that shoots lighting from her eyes!
Will we have enough St. John's Wort and power chrystals to fight these other wordly meeanies if we cut these programs?
Who ya gonna call?!
.....probably best to consult a psychiatrist.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 17, 2010 11:42 AM
Very good point JJ. I expect the defenders of CAM to pick up on this and use it in their defense.
Posted by: Moggie
|
June 17, 2010 11:47 AM
The dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
June 17, 2010 11:49 AM
I think we should do the opposite.
Fund ONLY Offices of Woo. Think of how much money THAT will save.
And then, while we're at it, we can stop funding health care. Require people to use "alternative" healing methods.
After all, they're soooooooo much less expensive. Think of all the bucks we'll save on things like MRI machines and cancer therapy and ICU units.
Disclaimer: I accept funding from the National Funeral Directors and Morticians Association.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
June 17, 2010 11:53 AM
OCCAM, really? Are they perchance sponsored by Gillette?
Posted by: sciencenotes
|
June 17, 2010 11:59 AM
Excellent suggestion, PZ!
- Monado
Posted by: otrame
|
June 17, 2010 12:00 PM
This is a brilliant proposal. Why won't anybody who will actually get a hearing (like the Director of NIH) make it?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 17, 2010 12:01 PM
You're not going to save much money that way. They've already been shut down.
Posted by: PhillipR
|
June 17, 2010 12:01 PM
Link text: " cut all the programs that have a bad track record and don't support good science:"
Did you mean "support good science"?
Posted by: daveau
|
June 17, 2010 12:02 PM
Speaking of UofM and woo, my brother brings his cats over to the veterinary school for checkups and treatments, etc. They offer acupuncture (catupuncture?) therapy. My sister-in-law goes for this. I'm not suggesting that they cut the veterinary program, just the crap.
Posted by: eeanm
|
June 17, 2010 12:07 PM
@daveau sounds like UofM found a good way to make money. Unethical maybe, but it probably helps the budget.
Posted by: Elf Eye
|
June 17, 2010 12:11 PM
If NCCAM and OCCAM test 'alternative' and 'complementary' claims and then report the resulting failures, wouldn't that be a good thing? These agencies haven't actually advocated any pseudo-scientific 'cures' or 'treatments', have they? I thought instead that they had refuted several such 'cures' and 'treatments'. Maybe the two organizations could be combined to cut overhead, but it seems to me that an agency that subjects pseudo-scientific claims to scientific testing would provide ammunition against cranks.
Posted by: Vene
|
June 17, 2010 12:12 PM
Phillip, I think he's saying to shut down programs that both have a poor track record and support bad science, as in the program supports bad science. Or maybe he wants to support Ben Goldacre.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 17, 2010 12:18 PM
@eeanm-
Yeah, why cut a profit center just because it is unethical...
In fairness, the rest of the treatment seems top notch. It's essentially a teaching hospital and is cheaper than going to a regular vet.
Posted by: kittywhumpus
|
June 17, 2010 12:21 PM
I agree. It would save or reallocate a couple million. It will never happen, of course. They bring in big research dollars, much of it from the NIH-NCCAM (and others from the Life Science Foundation), which the University will never say "no" to. We'll have to start at the top, I fear, with the original suggestion regarding the NIH-NCCAM, which would in turn cut off funds from centers like CHS. (Which will, in turn, put at least six more CSBU employees here at the U out of work.)
How do we go about reallocating woo?
Posted by: Techskeptic
|
June 17, 2010 12:24 PM
Glad you still think this is a good idea...
Posted by: Techskeptic
|
June 17, 2010 12:27 PM
A elf eye
"If NCCAM and OCCAM test 'alternative' and 'complementary' claims and then report the resulting failures, wouldn't that be a good thing? "
Yes, it would, but this time has passed. 10 years, 2 billion dollars later, no plausible mechanism for any of the things to work, its long time to stop this silliness.
The testing has become: Well acupuncture didnt work under these trials, lets all wear red shirts and see if it works then.
Its time to put this silliness to rest and require people making the claims of alt med, to pay for evidence of efficacy themselves... like drug companies have to.
Posted by: Sajanas
|
June 17, 2010 12:35 PM
Well, I copy pasted it into an email to www.whitehouse.gov and voiced my support for such a proposal.
I'd encourage everyone else here to go do the same. For every email, I bet they assume there are hundreds or thousands that don't email.
Posted by: eeanm
|
June 17, 2010 12:39 PM
@17 actually drug companies often piggyback on NIH funded research.
Whats weird about the NCCAM and OCCAM funded research is that everything they are researching more properly belongs to another part of NIH. NIH already has agencies that give grants for pain treatment, for cancer etc. In fact many times a study will start in NCCAM and then be moved to another agency, effectively increasing the clout of NCCAM.
So really its a matter of if something in alternative medicine actually worked it wouldn't be alternative it would just be medicine and there would be some part of NIH ready to fund research into it.
Posted by: And-U-Say
|
June 17, 2010 12:50 PM
What? WHAT? 240 million dollars? Damn! Since we are going to waste that money anyway, how can I tap into that? I need a new Ferrari.
Posted by: pitbone62
|
June 17, 2010 1:00 PM
Maybe we can package this idea with Sarah Silverman's "Sell the Vatican, Feed the World" initiative...
On the other hand, NCCAM is still producing new research which brings to light harmful side effects of "natural" remedies. Merging it with OCCAM sure seems like a good idea though.
Posted by: Molly, NYC
|
June 17, 2010 1:14 PM
You're right, and I'm truly sorry. It seems to me that CAM research could have been handled in a responsible way.
In particular, telling the public about stuff they investigated that didn't pan out could have been a real service.
For example, every year since its inception, NCCAM throws a few million at acupuncture trials, and they virtually always show either diddly effect or are based on an experiment design a smart high-school kid could blow holes in. At some point, you'd think they'd accept that acupuncture was a dry hole, but every year they pull this Rocky and Bullwinkle routine: "This time for sure!"
It's not just that they have a responsibility to stop throwing money at BS. It's also about dodging a responsibility to tell people "Hey, we studied this very carefully, and we're sorry to tell you this (because we too had high hopes for it), but it just doesn't work. Didn't work in China, doesn't work here. Save your money."
NCCAM was a charming idea initially, offering the prospect of cheap, accessible methods from outside-the-box. But bizarrely, efficacy was never a requirement. (1) Consequently NCCAM/OCCAM have been ringing a dinner bell for (and are largely run by) quacks.
____
(1) Cheap, accessible and efficacious: Regular exercise, maintaining an appropriate weight, quitting smoking, baby aspirin for some cardiovascular issues, niacin with or without a statin--the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute has been eating NCCAM's lunch.
Posted by: tsig0
|
June 17, 2010 1:23 PM
"Posted by: And-U-Say Author Profile Page | June 17, 2010 12:50 PM
What? WHAT? 240 million dollars? Damn! Since we are going to waste that money anyway, how can I tap into that? I need a new Ferrari."
1. Invent a Alternative Medicine Scam.
2. Apply for grant.
3. Ferrari!!!
Posted by: NateHevens
|
June 17, 2010 1:32 PM
Me likey. Emailing White House now...
Posted by: Victor
|
June 17, 2010 2:22 PM
I certainly hope that instead of blogging about it, some of the people here take a few minutes and write a hand written letter to people able to make the cuts. Hand written letters with monthly check ups get people's attention more than blogs or thousand of form e-mails.
Posted by: john3141592@msn.com
|
June 17, 2010 8:41 PM
If you want to save big money, drop the ISS into the Pacific. There would then be no need for low orbit shuttles.
After that, stop trying to send humans to the Moon or Mars, and NASA could do real science.
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 18, 2010 5:29 AM
johnπ:
Are you implying that trying to send humans to the Moon or Mars excludes the possibility of NASA doing real science?
I doubt that.
As for saving money, yes junking any program whatsoever will achieve that.
Are you implying that the ISS is a waste akin to bogus medicine?
I doubt that, too.
Posted by: jrcallahan
|
June 18, 2010 8:12 AM
"The Center is committed to exploring integrative therapies in the context of rigorous science"
"rigorous science"- I think not. This is just part of the empty headed multiculturalism and moral relativism that says that other cultures' way of doing things are ok even if they violate universal morality and ethics (similar to many muslims who mutilate the genitalia of their young girls- oh!! but who are we western secularists to judge them??!- they are from a different culture so what they are doing is ok- we just don't understand their way of life) Bullshit!!!! This pseudoscience is being hidden under the cloak of multiculturalism and is being allowed to flourish in an institution of higher learning only because of this.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
June 18, 2010 9:30 AM
"why not kill our university boondoggle"
Hey, shouldn't the Woowoo Department be a cash cow? For all you know, your next PhD student may be funded by the earnings from Woowoo. Sure it's unethical, but it's still green.
Posted by: Michael Korn
|
June 18, 2010 4:26 PM
“Here's my proposal: save over $240 million per year in the NIH budget by cutting all funding for the two centers that fund alternative medicine research--the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and the Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine (OCCAM). Both of them exist primarily to promote pseudoscience.”
If you knew anything about the real science of statistics, you would realize that since Nixon’s “War on Cancer” American taxpayers have forked out trillions of dollars to sophisticated bio-research labs; and all the time cancer rates have skyrocketed.
The only thing that money has “cured” is the lack of employment for bio grad students.
We are under no obligation to fund you incessantly, especially since you have not fulfilled our expectations to find cures for cancer.
Meanwhile the most obvious factors behind the explosive growth in cancer -- environmental pollution, chemical and radiation exposures, poor diet, pesticides, hormones, food additives in the non-organic farming sector -- are too simple for all the big brains on bio nerds.
We can cut YOUR funding and send YOU off to collect unemployment.
It’s better than the jail time you deserve for betraying the trust of hardworking American taxpayers.
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
June 18, 2010 5:23 PM
When something is called OCCAM, doesn't it practically beg to have a razor taken to it?
Posted by: phoenixwoman
|
June 19, 2010 12:11 AM
Oh, boy! Michael Korn is Gary Null -- he sure is reciting the Null Gospel. Too bad Null nearly killed himself recently with his own snake oil and had to be rescued by real doctors.
Posted by: Zernk
|
June 21, 2010 12:21 PM
Especially when, to get the absurd acronym, you stretch the orifice of grammar to where you could birth triplets simultaneouslyPosted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 1, 2010 1:43 PM
Bye-bye Mig
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2010 1:52 PM
Copy pasta artists are frowned upon. The loser also doesn't have any real evidence. Mig doesn't have a clue what that is.