Originally Posted by indigogo

MD -

The reason I started this thread was because of the conversation you were having under the topic "Wondering." http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/thread159111.html

Do you think this is how you would capture the concern and ask the question:

Has MJFF become too conventional? Does their success at dominating and influencing the traditional medical research paradigm, including how projects are selected and funded, mean they are no longer really able to think and act innovatively? Can they move beyond the MJFF paradigm to continually push boundaries? Can they break with their own traditions and model? Or are they too wedded to the existing research-pharma-corporate system to be truly visionary?

My conversations with them lead me to believe that they want to be, but are often constrained by the very system they are trying to challenge. They are bound by legal restrictions regarding confidentiality and proprietary information, stymied by industry and government rules and regulations.

Which regulations are needed for legitimate consumer protection? Which ones exist to protect business interests? How do they make their way through the mine field intact? Is it their job to explode systems or be nuanced and smart enough to utilize and exploit those systems to our benefit?

I've learned that things are more complex than I would like them to be (sometimes they simply can't comment in public). My hope is that they don't allow the system to wear them down; that they are always seeking to find a new way through, while retaining their power, credibility, and integrity.

It's a good question - one worth talking about - and one that I hope they are asking themselves. And I guess I am asking it now!