What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close
With rendition switcher

Transcript

Question: How much is the NIH's funding process affected by politics?

Francis Collins: We’re fortunate at NIH, that the Congress has in general has adopted a view that making priority decisions about scientific research is best done by scientists.  People talk about areas in other parts of the government where there’s earmarking or sometimes in a less friendly way called "pork" funding; we are relatively free of that.  Congress will certainly indicate to us when they think there is an area that needs more attention, but rarely will they attach a specific dollar figure to that.  They’ll just ask us to look at that a little more carefully.  So we have a very good working relationship.  

Likewise with the administration.  The administration is interested in seeing NIH be very productive and they want to hear all the time about how we’re spending our money and have us defend why it’s the right way to go.  But they’re generally reluctant to say, “Well you should spend X dollars on Y disease.”  And that just doesn’t seem like the way to make the choices.

Question:
How much say should the public have about what federal research money is spent on?


Francis Collins: Well the public does have a lot of say.  We have many disease advocacy groups who are constantly putting forward their case for why more research needs to be done on their condition, and of course, I would love to meet all of those requests, but we are often stuck in a situation where we’re limited in resources, and so we can’t do everything.  

But certainly we work I think pretty effectively with a lot of those groups to identify where are the areas that are most ripe for investment.  And sometimes that means coming up with an RFA because something is about to break.  Sometimes it’s organizing a workshop and trying to survey the field of a disease that seems to have gotten stuck for a while and figure out how to get it unstuck, and figure out how to get some new ideas and new scientific minds working on the problem.  I would say, for the most part, we have very productive, synergistic, friendly relationships with disease advocates who understand how the process works, are anxious to see resources put into their disease, but want it to be done in a fashion that’s scientifically productive and not just throwing money at the problem.

Question:
Are there areas of medicine or technologies where research dollars go farther?

Francis Collins: Return on investment is always an interesting question when it comes to medical research.  Well, what would you call "return?"  Is it that you’ve published a certain number of papers?  Well, that is one metric I suppose and that they are in high-impact journals, that’s another metric.  But really what we’re about is trying to help people.  

So the real return you’re looking for is clinical benefits, diagnostics, therapeutics, preventive measures.  The lead time on those is often measured in years.  And so it maybe quite difficult to assess when you’re just looking at a program that’s been underway for three or four years, how does it measure up in terms of what you’re getting for your dollars compared to some other program that similarly is sort of in an early stage of moving into clinical benefits?  But we try to do that to the extent we can and I think we should.  This is taxpayers' money; the taxpayers believe in us as the place that is gonna make that next breakthrough.  They want to be assured that we’re using those dollars in the most effective way possible.  Sometimes people think NIH is just, you know, playing around in the lab.  I can assure that’s not the view of people here, but we need to be prepared at any moment to defend the choices we’ve made as having had the best chance of benefiting real people out there who are counting on us to use their money wisely.  It is their money.

Recorded September 13, 2010
Interviewed by David Hirschman

 

What Is ROI in Medical Rese...

Newsletter: Share: