Impatient with NIH, cancer researcher turns to crowdfunding

  • Article by: Dan Browning , Star Tribune
  • Updated: November 24, 2013 - 6:12 AM

U surgeon gets creative as he seeks $500,000 for promising work.

  • 7
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 7 of 7
mandansmomNov. 24, 1312:03 AM

I have a professional relationship with Dr. Saltzman and I can tell you this: he is a brilliant, ethical, uncommonly human man!

His work is exciting and quite promising. The NIH has already given the nod to his work, but usually can't fund a single scientist to the end of the project. That Dr. Saltzman has gone to the internet and crowd sourcing is but another example of how creative he is, and how willling he is to embrace new paradigms.

Go to the site; and if you have an extra buck or two, give it to him. He might just be the guy who solves solid organ cancer, one dollar at a time.

15
1
rayk1800Nov. 24, 13 2:41 AM

This is interesting work. My spouse passed away from colon cancer this year as she was too far along for chemo to work. Finding a better treatment than chemo is really important.

12
0
rayk1800Nov. 24, 13 2:43 AM

Forgot to add. I donated in my wife's name and urge anyone that can to help. Thanks.

9
0
sundialNov. 24, 13 8:33 AM

What does it say about our country's priorities when we spend billions for overseas military bases and a researcher has to resort to crowdsourcing to raise money for cancer research?

15
1
newspaper3Nov. 24, 13 9:27 AM

Amazing work. It took me only 2 minutes to log on and donate. Thanks for giving us all an opportunity to be a part of something so great.

7
1
bobajoulNov. 24, 13 8:28 PM

Dan is a good man, worked with him for years. Great job on the money. Only question is whether the U, which would not support this research internally, will take its 48% cut of the money for "indirects" like they do on all other grants.

5
0
bajajohnNov. 25, 1312:51 PM

What an indictment of America's commitment to science! The chances of getting an NIH grant are as low as 1-in-10 in some areas. That means an average scientist has to write 10 proposals to get 1 funded. It takes at least a month to write a proposal for funding - which usually lasts for 3 years. About a third of a scientist's time wasted begging for money. Then the universities take about a third of the awarded funds for their overhead costs. If the researcher is paid for writing the proposals, that means less than half of the grant money goes towards actual research. It seems time that NIH figured out a more cost-effective way of funding research. Decades ago, they used to fund 90%. The high overheads charged by universities evolved from supporting research into funding other university efforts as the government cut back on education funding. The government is bleeding science dry! The worry is how long it will take for crowdsourcing to flood the media with less noble requests and dilute opportunities for people like Dan. Maybe even universities will need to turn to crowdsourcing! Another issue here is that Dan has 3 patents pending on his techniques. How is this going to affect cost and availability of treatment?

3
1
  • 1 - 7 of 7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT