Consensus document issued on hematology research priorities for Europe

In a time of restricted federal budgets, research funding becomes somewhat of a luxury. Yet, research and innovation are the primary movers of change and progress, both of which are needed to drive growth to ease budget restrictions. In order to ensure that precious resources are allocated to the most promising endeavors, federal governments establish bureaucracies charged with the task of allocating funding to the “best” proposals. Unfortunately, the task of defining “best” is imprecise and largely subjective.

To address this systemic deficiency and to improve the efficient allocation of resources, the scientific community often provides guidance to funding agencies to help choose among competing proposals. In 2015, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) announced its “Agenda for Hematology Research.” The agenda included recommendations to prioritize funding to projects in the following domains: genomic profiling and chemical biology, immunologic treatments of hematologic malignancies, genome editing and gene therapy, stem cell biology and regenerative medicine, epigenetic mechanisms, and venous thromboembolic disease.

Dr. Matt Kalyacio

More recently, the European Hematology Association has published its Roadmap for European Hematology Research. Ostensibly similar to the ASH Agenda, the EHA document is a much more detailed policy statement that calls out the most promising research opportunities across the nine major components of hematology: normal hematopoiesis, malignant lymphoid disorders, malignant myeloid disease, anemias and related diseases, platelet disorders, blood coagulation and hemostatic disorders, transfusion medicine, infections in hematology, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and other cell based therapies.

I find the two documents complementary in that the ASH Agenda is more accessible to grant reviewers and funding agencies, while the EHA Roadmap seems more directed to the scientific community. Whether a grant writer or a grant reviewer, these documents should help researchers focus their applications on preferred projects and help reviewers prioritize proposals.

While laudable in their goals globally, such consensus documents place much faith in the knowable future and less in the unknowable, disruptive future. Researchers with innovative ideas that do not fall into the prioritizations set forth by the community at large might find themselves struggling for resources. This unintended consequence of consensus building risks the loss of inspired science on the altar of groupthink. The “moonshot” championed by Vice-President Biden will be more likely to succeed when consensus science allows for novel approaches that have yet to be revealed.

Dr. Matt Kalaycio is the editor-in-chief of Hematology News and chairs the department of hematologic oncology and blood disorders at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland. Leave your comments on our website or write to Dr. Kalaycio at hematologynews@frontlinemedcom.com.