This is cute. I just finished defending why the retirement plan at work should offer a Roth option, when I'm dead-set opposed to what the Roth retirement plans offer.
I'm not trying to be a smart butt here, I just want to be clear about that.
I think we need to know stuff. Certainly if I were calling the shots I'd fund things slightly differently, but many wouldn't agree with how I'd do it either nor would I expect concensus if you or Lyon or anyone else here was calling the shots with the exception of jimmylegs. But at the end of the day, we need to do research because we need to know stuff.
I read a lot of articles. I'm glad there is a lot of published research. I'd like to spend money to make all the articles available for free. That's what I'd spend money on first. I don't know what's been done on Avonex and Copaxone, but as someone who has read a lot about both, yes, I'm interested to know what they find. I think there is value in that. Time for an analogy......
When your favorite NFL team is facing 4th and 1, most of us scream "GO FOR IT!" at the TV. But, NFL coaches more often than not choose to punt. But even if they do go for it, when they don't make it we qualify everything else that happens in the game afterward with, "If they hadn't have gone for it then blah, blah blah....". I think if a researcher can get someone to fund them, then they ought to be able to do the research. I don't want the government telling us what we can and cannot take (like in Australia) any more than they already do. Nor do I want the government telling us what kind of approach to MS is the "right" one.
.... and I don't want a committee of experts to be calling the plays for my Redskins and Steelers. Ken