Everybody should think of starting a new career once in a while, and New Year's Day seems as good a time as any for US taxpayers to embark on their new jobs as Venture Capitalists. Medgadget, a site that brings us news of advances in medical technology, now tells us about a private Salt Lake City company, TechniScan Medical Systems, who just received $2.8 million in taxpayer money, from NIH no less, to develop a noninvasive ultrasound device for detecting breast cancer.
Medgadget is offended by the use of public dollars for this purpose, and frankly, so am I. NIH supports basic research and this is out and out product development for a privately held company. The technique uses information described as exploiting images of the speed of sound and sound attenuation (since these are perfectly correlated, it's unclear how one provides additional information, but there isn't much information available). The method is touted by the company as having better quality images (although its diagnostic accuracy is not mentioned), doesn't use ionizing radiation or require breast compression (as in mammography).
These are all desirable qualities. So desirable that it doesn't seem reasonable this company would have any trouble attracting private capital and investment on its own. Of course then they would have to share any profits with the investors. Much better to have US taxpayers do it so that when and if this becomes a desirable and expensive "procedure" we can pay for it again in our health insurance premiums.
Private companies like this are not usually eligible for NIH grant solicitations (at least as far as I know; maybe someone can provide information). Does this mean that the grant proposal is public information?
Maybe someone would like to make a Freedom of Information Request and publish the proposal on the web so everyone can benefit.
Addendum: Thanks to SciBlings Mad Mike and Orac who (correctly) point out that this is part of the SBIR program (see links in the comments). I've never reviewed grants for this program and don't usually think about it, although once it was pointed out to me I recognized it existed from numerous boilerplate mentions. I still wonder about its propriety for NIH, but as Mike points out, it's been around for a while.
- Log in to post comments
Actually, NIH has had the SBIR/STTR grant program for a while. I think what happened is that TechniScan stupidly oversold the grant they received (it's not that much money). The other company should just apply to the program. (In the biotech world, $2.8 million is small change)
Here's the CRISP summary.
None of this is particularly unusual. Apparently the writers at Medgaget and you were unaware of this program. The NIH provides seed grants to companies, usually smaller businesses and startups, all the time and has been doing so for many years now. I'm on a study section that reviews a fair number of these grants. The programs include the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. Here is a description of the programs:
Basically, it's a program to encourage small businesses and startup companies with innovative ideas that are not far enough along in their development to attract capital and investment. (I forget what level of capitalization is too high for a company to be eligible for these grants.) The idea is to encourage promising but risky ideas with a little extra help (SBIR) or to encourage partnerships between small business and universities (STTR). As someone whose politics lean to the right of yours and who has a bit of a libertarian bent in his outlook, I don't find this program nearly as offensive as you do, particularly given that it's targeted towards small businesses and startups and given that other nations invest far more in such programs than we do. In an ideal world of pure capitalism, such investment would not be necessary, but I really see little harm in this particular program.
My suggestion is that, if the program offends you so much, you should write your Representative and Senators and suggest that they abolish the program.
MM and Orac: Of course I should have realized it was SBIR (I've never dealt with it before, although I recognize it exists). I'd rather save my political capital for the NIH CAM grants :).
Orac: I would guess you are to the right of me pollitically, but not because you are a libertarian. I am a left libertarian. Your crusade against alternative medicine practitioners doesn't sound very libertarian to me (the word authoritarian comes to mind instead), which isn't to say you aren't correct about much or most of your specific judgments in that regard. My observation is about your claim of libertarianism. I am assuming from your comments that you have already made your representatives and senators aware of your views on the NIH CAM program. What were their responses? Thanks for your interest? Just curious.
I am sure that the grant was made within the law. Otherwise someone is going to get visit a federal penitentiary on a trip other than the guided tour.
The government agencies I have experience with fund oodles (a technical term) of money into the private sector for technology development, I don't think there's anything out of line here. In some cases the government can get the rights to what gets developed, it depends on the contract and the technology.
Revere,
The response was a polite acknowledgment, as I'm sure you realize. But you do have a point. That was a few years ago; perhaps it is time that I gave it another try, particularly given who my Representative is and given that he will soon be part of the majority, and a senior part of the majority at that.
As for my supposedly being "authoritarian," once again I think you wouldn't say such things if you read me regularly. For one thing, I said I'm "libertarian-leaning" or "a bit of a libertarian bent" (or, as I now like to put it, "libertarianish"). For another thing, I've said time and time again that competent adults should be able to pick whatever treatment they like, be it conventional or woo, even if their choice kills them. I merely want to ensure that such choices be informed and not based on the deception of quacks. When it comes to children, however, I am less "libertarianish" for the simple reason that I consider subjecting them to ineffective therapies to be neglect at best and abuse at worst.
But, hey, turnabout's fair play. Since you asked me about the fruits of my efforts vis-a-vis NCCAM (cleverly forcing me to admit my lack thereof), perhaps I'll take this opportunity to ask you: What, specifically, is your position with respect to the role of the government in enforcing the practice of good medicine and the protection of its citizens from quackery? You claim to be a "left libertarian." Does that mean that you believe in a limited role for government in protecting people from quacks?
Orac: I appreciate your clarification. I am not at all in disagreement with your position. Regarding what I think the gov't should or should not do with respect to quackery, I think they should do more and apply it as vigorously to some of the frankly false or misleading adverstising of Big Pharma and the personal care products industry. I think your judgments on quacks are mostly accurate and think they should be extended to people not usually considered quacks, like drug companies. My socialist libertarianism relates mainly to personal liberties, political and religious views (I am an atheist but think people should be able to believe what they want) and freedom of expression. I realize that produces tricky issues with advertising. I only ask we be consistent and go after the big quacks as much as the little ones.
My interesets in your treatment of alternative medicine is not in the judgments you make. Maybe you are harder on acupuncture than I would be. In any event, you are correct I don't know them all, only a few of them. I'm truthfully not interested in the subject so I don't read your posts about it except sporadically. As I said, I am interested in the reasons you make them. My intent in being provocative was to argue about ideas (in this case epistemology), not to be personally provoking, although I am not above needling you a bit. I wasn't too worried because you clearly are no shrinking violet who is easily bruised and I thought it would be fun and maybe useful to pick a fight about ideas.
The usefulness for me relates to a larger issue. We frequently find the extreme right and their patrons making statments about pseudoscience when they brand science that is inconvenient for them "junk science." So the underlyhing epistemology is of practical importance, mainly for that reason, and thinking clearly about it is of value to me. And how better to think clearly about something than arguing with someone smart? I'm not at all competitive. I figure I've won when I understand something better.
Needling....? Revere???? Come on! No way...! I am still waiting for the president of Replikins to show his face here. Now that will be a big day in my book. Revere will take him apart like a two dollar watch and I will hold his jacket whilst he does it.
Sam Bogoch shows his face at:
http://tinyurl.com/wm7my
He is described as the CEO of "SeeFile Software."
If you go to the website SeeFile.com, you will see that it is based at 36 the Fenway, Boston -- the same address where replikins.com is registered.
Oops -- re: my comment above:
The "Sam Bogoch" in the url I listed above seems far too young to be the replikins guy. Same business address; may be a relative. Sorry -- the real Samuel Bogoch is still not showing his face on this site.
My mistake.