We need to rethink research foundations
One of the ideas I've been discussing a lot lately is contributions to research foundations and organizations. There are many of them out there ranging from energy solutions and healthcare to cancer and aids research. Each one has its own special reason for being and claim their different than the rest.
Cancer is one of the biggest causes of disease related death. There are many organizations that have been started to discover a working treatment, prevention and possibly a cure for the widely spread disease, but how far have we really come? Let's consider the types of cancer. We have brain, lung, colon, prostrate, breast, throat and many many more. Is not cancer cancer? Wouldn't a solution to cure cancer cure all cancer?
Another major research industry is energy. Solar, biofuels, wind, nuclear and clean coal technologies are beginning to become very popular. People are investing in many types of energy research. Everyone is on the hunt for a new source.
So which one should you contribute to? It seems as if there is so much competition - everyone wants your money. Why? To be the first that discovers the solution so they can make lots of money, become famous or some other kind of twisted reason. Another point to make is that so much money is being spread so thin in many different locations that it is not effective. It appears very clear that these funds are wasted due simply to the fact that the research is the same. A large grant would be better used in conjunction with another grant or multiple donations. Instead of throwing money into a random foundation that is working on similar advances, wouldn't it seem more efficient to establish one foundation and donate to the success of it?
Posted by scott at 04:03AM in brain
0 votes / vote / 1686 views / 0 comments / share / link
