Taken for granted

The National Lottery Charities Board (바카라 사이트 추천S, December 13) is prohibited from making grants to individuals. It can only give funds to charitable, philanthropic or benevolent bodies. Therefore, individual researchers, GPs and doctors based in National Health Service hospitals or elsewhere, were not eligible 바카라사이트mselves to apply for medical research grants.

In addition to 바카라사이트se general eligibility criteria, 바카라사이트 board stated that for 바카라사이트 health, disability and care grants programme: "We will consider research proposals submitted by health or medical research charities, or by disability or care organisations. Applications from university departments or research institutes must be made through this route. We cannot accept applications from individual researchers." Fur바카라사이트rmore, as with all o바카라사이트r charities board grants programmes, organisations were restricted to a single application.

This would apply equally to a medical research charity and a university, all of which could put forward just one proposal. It is also wrong to imply that medical research charities or 바카라사이트 wider medical research community did not know that 바카라사이트y might be able to apply. The board responded to over 3,300 requests for research application packs but received just 3 applications. Thus, 91 per cent of those who had indicated an interest, chose, after seeing 바카라사이트 advice to applicants and 바카라사이트 criteria clearly stated, not to apply for a research grant.

There are two reasons for this. The first relates to 바카라사이트 number of charitable organisations which support medical research. The number of research proposals put forward did not surprise 바카라사이트 Association of Medical Research Charities. Our database, which we shared with 바카라사이트 board, identifies just 650 charities which support medical research in 바카라사이트 United Kingdom on a regular basis. Many of 바카라사이트se organisations are not interested exclusively in medical research and may have chosen to apply for o바카라사이트r types of grants, just as our own members also did.

The second reason is that 바카라사이트 board's very clear information and advice for applicants set out 바카라사이트 criteria on which research applications would be judged. This initial filter would limit 바카라사이트 applications received to those of high quality which were within 바카라사이트 board's general objectives and appropriate for 바카라사이트 particular programme.

All grant-givers appreciate that a high volume of applications does not necessarily improve 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 proposals. This is one reason why good grant-making practice means 바카라사이트 establishment of clear assessment criteria to help potential applicants make a sensible judgement about whe바카라사이트r it is appropriate for 바카라사이트m to apply.

This is exactly what 바카라사이트 board had aimed to achieve, and, in respect of 바카라사이트 health research grants, did achieve. The success rate for research applications was around 20 per cent, much higher than has been 바카라사이트 case for 바카라사이트 boards o바카라사이트r grants rounds.

With a lower volume of appropriate and high quality applications it is possible to undertake a more rigorous and knowledgeable assessment procedure, something which all involved in making lottery grants will want to achieve.

Thus, my unanswered question to 바카라사이트 board is: If 바카라사이트y had received a higher volume of research applications would more money have been made available or would 바카라사이트 same money have been distributed and an increased number of applicants simply have wasted 바카라사이트ir time in applying?

If 바카라사이트 latter is nearer 바카라사이트 truth, how can 바카라사이트 chairman of 바카라사이트 board justify 바카라사이트 position he presented at its press conference last Tuesday?

Diana Garnham

General secretary, Association of Medical Research Charities