Is JDRF going in right direction?

is JDRF going in right direction? or it is misleading us, JDRF always fund those companies which purely are engage in making profits or it is obstacle to good trials , as after permanent cure is found ,

JDRf employees have to seek jobs at other places

Personally, I have an ethical issue with their support of fetal stem cell research. I’d supported them for many years in various ways, but was forced to re-examine that when they began to support this My reservations are based purely on personal religious grounds, and I don’t begrudge those who do not share my concerns. Even if that research leads to a cure for Type I (which I have) I could not in good conscience avail myself of that opportunity to rid myself or my family of the misery of this disease.

The cynics will say that is stupid of me, or selfish, etc. My family and I are comfortable with that decision. In fact, I had the opportunity to participate in a clinical trial of islet cells which could have cured me, but I chose not to since some of the research done by the institution involved in the study involved fetal stem cells.

One thing about their direction is just that this issue seems to be one of their primary focuses. Using a market based approach to the issue, if this were as promising as advertised, then private companies would be working on it hammer and tong. Government funding should not be necessary to the vitality of an issue that impacts millions since a private sector cost benefit analysis would motivate robust research.

In the (great) book “Cheating Destiny,” the author makes the case that funding sources drive research. People providing funding want to support research that leads to “results/success” so they prefer projects that build on current research, leading to incremental progress. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle that leads to very slow (if much of any) progress toward the ultimate goal of finding a cure.

What’s needed is funding for research that’s “out there” by those standards but who will fund radically different approaches? No one wants to “throw money away” on ideas that are outside the conventional thinking. The book reviews research funded by Lee Iacocca (of Chrysler fame). Iacocca backs research that’s way outside the mainstream and has led to intriguing results. He’s one of the very few willing to invest in this approach and he can’t fund it himself or forever, for that matter. As a result, the pioneering researchers end up devoting most of their time to fundraising rather than research.

After I read the book, I had a very different attitude toward the JDRF. It seems as if they are part of the problem because they support only mainstream, incremental research. Because they’re well established, they can get funding more easily than others, too, leaving less available to other researchers.