This is the ‘throw government money at problems and things improve’ model. We keep throwing more money at cancer and doing it mostly in incremental ways that have at most small impacts. We may or may not reduce cancer death rates but I would be surprised to see much impact from the announced program – it reads like Do More rather than looking at what would cut the enemy.
I don’t think that’s completely fair.
The general strategy is to create something like DARPA that can fund innovative projects instead of something like the NIHs that is unable to fund innovative projects.
The fight to make ARPA-H independent from the rest of the NIH succeeded and is now answerable to the HHS and not Francis Collins.
Choosing Renee Wegrzyn who’s 45-year-old, who has DARPA experience, no NIH experience and was vice president at Ginkgo bioworks for new business development should be applauded. Her long now talk also seems good.
I don’t think that’s completely fair.
The general strategy is to create something like DARPA that can fund innovative projects instead of something like the NIHs that is unable to fund innovative projects.
The fight to make ARPA-H independent from the rest of the NIH succeeded and is now answerable to the HHS and not Francis Collins.
Choosing Renee Wegrzyn who’s 45-year-old, who has DARPA experience, no NIH experience and was vice president at Ginkgo bioworks for new business development should be applauded. Her long now talk also seems good.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/12/fact-sheet-president-biden-details-cancer-moonshot-progress-and-new-initiatives-on-60th-anniversary-of-president-kennedys-moonshot-address/
seems a list of the actual plans. Making federal research open access should be applauded.
The moves to facilitate open data sharing between cancer stakeholders also seem good to me.