Solariums accused of disregarding skin cancer research in research conducted by respected researchers at the Salk Cancer Institute are still receiv카지노 사이트ing funding from the NIH, despite repeated calls from scientists and government ethics experts to stop.
As it stands, research funded through the NIH is restricted to basic and clinical research, such as to understand how skin cancer is spread and how to treat it.
NIAID’s John Ioannidis, chairman of the advisory panel that includes the NIA’s principal investigators, told Live Science that the NIA’s Office of Health Research Policy (OHRP) is currently reviewing whether to reevaluate the Salk Cancer Institute’s (SciCare) funding decisions for a variety of conditions that include nonpancreatic cancer, liver disease, and type 1 diabetes. (It would take a regulatory ruling from the federal government to alter the NIH’s funding rules for these conditions.)
The panel is currently deciding the appropriate amount of funding for each particular type of research, according to the Associated Press. The NIA’s Director of Health Research Policy, Dr. Michael Reiter, declined to comment on the Salk-funded studies and described them only as “expert opinion.”
But some of these researchers are actively researching and reporting their work to the public — on blogs and social media channels — to educate about how skin cancer works and how to prevent it from becoming a major health care problem, according to two researchers who wrote about the Salk-funded studies.
Pending an OHP review, the NIH has previously allowed funded research to include information about a broad range of human cancers. As part of that review, the government recently also decided not to fund a cancer study that uses a type of radiation known as gamma ray irradiation. (바카라Research on this specific radiation has been around since the 1960s, though it was considered more dangerous at the time than ionizing radiation.)
“Skin cancer has been a big deal in terms of funding, but there were 바카라certain conditions that were deemed too challenging, which may have kept us from having some of these results,” said John D. Gottlieb of the University of California, San Francisco, one of the scientists who wrote about the Salk-funded studies. “This could also lead to some biases and inaccuracies in our findings.”
Scientists aren’t quite sure how to explain why funding for the Salk-funded studies seems to have been “continuously mismanaged,” according to coauthor Dr. Risa Heller, an Salk professor of radiology who has not yet bee