Jump to content

Talk:Breakthrough T1D

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ElisabethF (talk | contribs) at 20:13, 19 July 2018 (→‎Request edit on 12 July 2018). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMedicine Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Old Facts / Controversy

This article paints a bleak picture for those diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and does not cite any facts. It is well doccumented that with the proper use of insulin as prescribed by doctors, people with type 1 diabetes are at the same risk of kidney failure, blindness, and amputation as those without diabetes beginning with the 1993 publication of the Diabetes control and complications trial.

Additionally, "Juvenile Diabetes" is no longer used in the medical community, and can be considered inappropriate considering that type 1 is prevalant in adults, and type 2 is increasingly prevalant in children in the United States. MUW Fan (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Indeed; it seems to be quite the controversial organization for allegedly ignoring promising treatment and cure protocols by mainstream medical researchers. See http://www.fumento.com/biotech/diabetes.html --Elvey (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

The Autoimmunity and Complications portions of the "research" sections seem to be duplicates of the same statements, and the "complications" portions makes very little sense since it does not describe diabetes complecations.MUW Fan (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


JDRF (formerly known as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation) → JDRF – The organization is now known simply as "JDRF", rather than "Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation". "Since its founding in 1970, JDRF was known as the "Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation." But today, 85% of those with T1D are no longer juveniles, they are adults. As a result the word "juvenile" is no longer descriptive of T1D or of the people and families living with the disease. Therefore, we recently dropped the formal name "Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation" from our identity and will now be known simply as JDRF. This better reflects our commitment to working with all ages and all stages of T1D, transforming lives both today and tomorrow. The brand section of the JDRF website contains more information on our name change and brand identity." Please see the jdrf.org website's "Frequently Asked Questions" section: http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=103442#name User:ECuebas 19:48, 2 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Support Article titles shouldn't contain former names of formarly known phrases. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support And I thought JDRF (formerly known as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation) was a bad title. JDRF: Improving Lives. Curing Type 1 Diabetes.?? The talk page and article page aren't even matching up. The sooner we clean that up the better. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to JDRF. Someone really messed this up—moved the article but not the talk page. Yes, move this to JDRF, without the slogan. We definitely do not include an organization's slogan in the article title. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to change my vote, but I'm not sure how "official" this change is. I'm definitely hearing radio ads for "the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation." Could be JDRF just isn't a household name yet, but it's not quite the same situation as KFC. --BDD (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

27.2 + 30.1 doesn't equal 57.2

Cure and Prevent: JDRF funded $57.2 million (62% of its research funding) in cure therapy research, with $27.2 million going to beta cell therapies and $30.1 million going to immune therapies.

It could be rounded, but...would anyone mind double-checking the statistics? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.209.84 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 11 July 2018

I would like to make an edit to the Research section of this Wikipedia page the JDRF (research is JDRF's self-stated primary mission focus) showing a year by year overview of how much money the organization spends on research. The first sentence on the JDRF “about” page quotes: “JDRF is the leading global organization funding type 1 diabetes (T1D) research.” Consequently, I feel this information is both relevant and important for the community. This information can be displayed within a research spending chart or can be listed in a bullet point list. The information in the post is 100% factual, listed in JDRF’s publicly available 990-tax forms and can be sourced to JDRF itself, the IRS or to a website which aggregates the spending by year, like the JDCA.org, Guidestar.org, or Propublica.org.

I would like to disclose that I work for the JDCA, a T1D nonprofit that tracks research, research spending, and community values and priorities via ongoing surveys. I attended the NYC Wikipedia Day 2018 in January to discuss the utility of JDCA information within Wikipedia and spoke to multiple administrators and editors who said as long as the edits are 100% factual, the JDCA was a perfect source for T1D-related websites because we do very specific and detailed analysis, which is exactly what Wikipedia is looking for. ElisabethF (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you do this, you need to propose the exact content you would like to add to this page, formatted just like you would put it in the article. Would you please do that? Thanks. 21:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 12 July 2018

In 2017, JDRF provided $79 million (38% of their total income) to T1D scientific research grants, down from $156.4 million (67% of their total income) in 2008.[1][2]

The images above provide an overview of JDRF research spending from 2007 to 2017.[3][4]

In 2017, the JDRF spent $21 million (11% of JDRF’s total revenue) on expenses related to research grant spending (administration costs), up from $9 million in 2007 (4% of JDRF’s total revenue). This includes all costs directly related to giving and managing research grants, including salary, bonuses, administration, meetings, etc. [5][6]

Or, the other possible edit is: In 2017, JDRF provided $79 million (38% of their total income) to T1D scientific research grants, down from $156.4 million (67% of their total income) in 2008. [7] Research Grant Spending by year:

  • 2017: $79 million (38% of total income)[8]
  • 2016: $75 million (38% of total income)[9]
  • 2015: $72 million (37% of total income)[10]
  • 2014: $98 million (44% of total income)[11]
  • 2013: $106 million (51% of total income)[12]
  • 2012: $110 million (57% of total income)[13]
  • 2011: $116 million (53% of total income)[14]
  • 2010: $108 million (52% of total income)[15]
  • 2009: $101 million (70% of total income)[16]
  • 2008: $156 million (67% of total income)[17]

In 2017, the JDRF spent $21 million (11% of JDRF’s total revenue) on expenses related to research grant spending (administration costs), up from $9 million in 2007 (4% of JDRF’s total revenue). This includes all costs directly related to giving and managing research grants, including salary, bonuses, administration, meetings, etc.[18]

This edit will be made to the Research section of this Wikipedia page.

References

  1. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729
  2. ^ http://thejdca.org/2018-jdrf-financials
  3. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729
  4. ^ http://thejdca.org/2018-jdrf-financials
  5. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729
  6. ^ http://thejdca.org/2018-jdrf-financials
  7. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729
  8. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729
  9. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729
  10. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729
  11. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729
  12. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729
  13. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729
  14. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729
  15. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729
  16. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729
  17. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729
  18. ^ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231907729

--ElisabethF (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting here, and posting the content you would like to see added. This is interesting and difficult to me.
The first version is sourced from (and proposed by an editor from) a watchdog group that advocates fiercely for more research funding for JD. The group has identified a trend in JDRF's research funding and has already posted information about that finding on their own website. The purpose of this edit is to try to make knowledge of that trend more widely known. In my view this is a WP:SOAP issue. If there were a source that was independent of JDRF and JDCA I would not be struggling, but as it is, I am struggling.
The 2nd version avoids citing the JDCA, but is really kind of WP:SYN, building a story from primary sources (as the JDCA did on their own website... which was fine to do there).
So figuring out a good response to this, is difficult for me. Others may find this simple. This is something where it may be useful to have an RfC to get a very broad peer review for this. Not sure.
Again, I appreciate you following the COI guideline, ElisabethF. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for input at WT:MED, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Research_funding_by_JDRF. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jytdog. May I set the template's answer parameter to D|D or would you like to keep it open?  spintendo  18:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is open, from my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
may be useful to have an RfC...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ElisabethF, this shows that grant-funded research expenses went down from an average of ~60% to ~40%, but it doesn't say why, so these are the kind of de-contextualized numbers that don't educate people much. An increase in grants administration can mean a number of different things, but it may be the right choice. It may also be a matter of fungibility: previously, we required you to do a bunch of paperwork and paid you to do it, and now we're doing that ourselves, and paying ourselves to do it.
Also, million-dollar grants to the wrong thing are wasteful. Is there any measure of actual effectiveness? I'm concerned that this criticism may be a case of measuring busy-ness when we need results.
Also, I dislike picking the peak and using that as a comparison point. A record high is not the normal point. It would be more pointful to compare across ranges (e.g., 1990s vs 2000s vs 2010s). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WhatamIdoing! Thanks very much for responding! Your point about not explaining why the research trend declines from 60% to 40% is well taken. However, to date, JDRF has not commented or made a public statement as to why the research spending has gone down. Although broad, the amount of research grant and administration cost spending is the most detailed information, other than information on individual grants, publicly available. I could add a note that JDRF has not commented on the decline. I view research spending as the most relevant data related to JDRF because it specifically identifies itself as a research funding organization. I wanted to include both research grant and research administration costs because to be as transparent as possible.
To address your comment on busy-ness vs. results; measuring grant effectiveness is an extremely tricky thing to do and there is no straightforward way to do it. For example, you could look at progression through testing phase (phase 1,2,3), but even this leaves out a reality that many projects that fail have value for other trials.
I would argue, because JDRF is 100% funded by donors, that an overview of research funding and administration costs provides content for the effectiveness of the non-profit itself in comparison to others, as opposed to effectiveness of the grants. Having said this, I am happy to add an additional analysis which shows what areas of grant funding JDRF has been successful/not- successful in.
Finally, I am happy to add more years as comparison points! I chose to start the comparison at 2007 because it was ten years back, I’m not sure if the data goes back to the 90s, but I am positive it goes back to the early 2000s. Happy to include that data as well and break it up into 3 or 5-year trends.
Please let me know if this addresses your concerns! Happy to continue to tweak it if need be. ElisabethF (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breakthrough_T1D&oldid=851062753"