[Posted in two parts -- combined]
 
 -- In advferret@y..., "in2ferrets" <in2ferrets@a...> wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>
>The American Ferret Association is soliciting volunteers to be
>considered for the formation of the ADV Grant Review Committee for
>2002. If selected for the ADV Grant Review Committee, each committee
>member will be responsible for reviewing ADV research projects
>submitted from researchers throughout the USA and will be voting on
>the division of the AFA's ADV Grant Fund for this year.
 
My reply to this post is not so much directed at Chris, as I know he does
not have the final say in how things are handled, but at the AFA in
general.  Since several of the people involved in the decision making
process are on this list, though, I know it will be seen by some of the
other people who do have a hand in the final say.
 
First, I hope that the AFA has learned from mistakes that were made the
first time around.  I hope that this time, you will decide ahead of time
what you want in the way of proposals, and relay that information to the
review committee, as well as to those submitting proposals.
 
When the U of GA originally showed interest in submitting a proposal the
last time, they explained that if they submitted a formal grant proposal,
that 50% of the funds received would go to the University for
administrative costs, and only 50% of the money would actually be used in
the research.  This is a common practice with universities and other
large research institutions.  However, they said they could submit an
informal request for a donation, and if a "donation" was made, all of the
money would go toward the research.  I relayed this information to some
of the AFA officers, and was told to tell the U of GA group that an
informal request would be sufficient, because we didn't want the money we
had collected to go toward general university "administrative costs".
After the decision was made on who the money would be awarded to, I was
told by one of these same people (who was also on the review committee)
that the main reason the U of GA was not selected to receive the largest
portion of the funds was that they did not submit a formal proposal.
What they had submitted was determined to be insufficient!  Apparently
the committee members were not advised that the U of GA had been told
an informal request would be sufficient.
 
So, I hope that when you solicit proposals from individuals and
institutions, you will be clear and what you expect them to submit, and
will also let the review committee know what you requested.
 
Next, I hope you will keep in mind that if you are going to request a
formal proposal, you may not get very many facilities qualified to do
any major type of research jumping at the chance with just $4,000.00 in
the pot.  While $4,000.00 may not be pocket change, it is a drop in the
bucket to what any real and meaningful research on ADV is likely to cost.
Even 10 times the amount you currently have is not likely to fund a
vaccine or even any real additional knowledge into the workings of the
disease.  And, there are costs involved for a university or large
research facility to put together a formal proposal.  Because of the
review process any formal proposal has to go through before being
submitted, administrative costs of preparing and submitting a proposal
can run a thousand dollars, or even more.  It is unlikely a university
department or other research facility is going to take the time and
trouble to submit a formal proposal for just $4,000.00.
 
So, if you want formal proposals, what you are likely to get is requests
from individuals, like vets, who are wanting to defray their clients
costs while trying out new treatments for ADV on their clients ADV+
ferrets.  There is nothing wrong with this, as many of the treatments we
use today were developed this way.  But, since the original stated
purpose of the ADV Grant Fund was to raise money for the research of a
vaccine, and since probably many people donated money and raffle items
with that in mind, is it right to switch the use of the money after the
fact?  Would those people be happy with their money being used to defray
the vet expenses of private owners of ADV+ ferrets to try out a new
treatment?  That is something you need to think about.
 
Finally, I hope that in choosing the review committee members, you will
select people that are qualified to review that proposals and decide
which one (or ones) are most likely to use the money you have collected
wisely.  I do not have a problem with having a layperson on the committee
- it is probably good to have a ferret owner on there, who understands
what the concerns and desires of the ferret community are with regard to
ADV.  But, it is even more important to have qualified individuals on the
committee that can review the proposals and determine whether or not they
are a sound and good investment of the fund money.
 
Both my husband and my father are research scientists, and both have sat
on review committees for research grants.  My father is a pioneer in
spectroscopy research, and my husband is a physicist specializing in
fluid dynamics.  When my husband sits on review committees, he reviews
only proposals dealing with fluid dynamics, not particle physics or
quantum mechanics or some other branch of physics.  Yes, he took graduate
level courses in those subjects, and understands them far better then the
average person that may just have taken undergraduate physics classes
in college, but he is still not qualified to judge proposals in those
fields, because he does not deal with them on a daily basis, and does
not keep up on the latest advances in those fields.
 
You need people on this committee that will be able to determine whether
or not what is being proposed is likely to be accomplished.  While there
are never guarantees that research will be successful, you want to give
the money to projects that have the greatest chance of being successful.
You need committee members that can determine whether or not the person
making the proposal is likely to have the background to qualify them to
do the research, and whether or not they have the facilities to do the
research.  Finally, you need people that are likely to know whether or
not the approach suggested has been tried in the past.  If something has
already been looked at, say a medicine to use as a treatment, and has
been proved not to work, there is no reason to give someone money to
try it again.  There are probably many vets who treat ferrets that are
probably not even qualified to make these kinds of decisions.  Unless
they have a reasonably good understanding of how the virus affects the
ferret, and have read up on research that has been done and know what
has been tried in the past, they will not be able to properly judge the
proposals.
 
If a grant fund is to be properly administrated, you really need
professionals handling it.  I realize that getting laypeople to volunteer
can be hard enough, but if this money is to be used meaningfully, you
need the right people in the decision making process.  Otherwise, you
might as well just flush the money down the toilet.
 
Perhaps the money could be put to better use by giving it to a foundation
that is set up to handle these kinds of thing, like the Morris Animal
Foundation.  The money could be turned over to them, earmarked for ADV
research, and would be held in trust until there was enough to fund a
useful research project.
 
I am afraid that the Mickey Mouse approach that is currently being taken
does nothing but make a mockery of the original intent of the fund.
 
I am posting this to the ADVList, but if others on this list feel the
points I have raised are important to have discussed in a larger forum, I
give permission for this to be crossed posted to other lists, as long as
it is taken in its entirety.  At least I hope this will give everyone
here some food for thought.
 
Danee
ADV - If your ferret hasn't been tested, you don't know!
For more information visit  http://www.geocities.com/russiansmom
[Posted in FML issue 3852]