How research funding focuses on your real needs

British_sailors_boarding_an_Algerine_pirate_ship.jpg

When you read or hear what people in the U.S. are dying from, what is it? Is it diabetes, cardiovascular disease or cancer?  

Every publication on the topic, including this on Wikipedia, will confirm that these are the most frequent "culprits". 

In fact, all of these are consequences of the real causes of death.

Here are the REAL major causes of death in the U.S. (in parentheses are the numbers of deaths):

tobacco (400,000)
diet/activity patterns (300,000)
alcohol (100,000)
microbial agents (90,000)
toxic agents (60,000)
firearms (35,000)
sexual behavior (30,000)
motor vehicles (25,000)
illicit use of drugs (20,000)
etc.

These causes were summarized long time ago, in 1993, by McGinnis and Foege in their JAMA publication, Actual causes of death in the United States.

It is logical that when you want to alleviate a problem, you address the causes, not the consequences. And yet, do our research funding agencies address the real causes of death or their consequences? Does our health care system do that? Do we continue to treat the symptoms or address the real "roots of evil"?

Here is how one major agency (DOD) that funds research in 2016:

I admit that some of the health problems/conditions listed in this website need more research and deserve funding. However, 1/4 of the listed problems are consequences of lifestyle choices. 

It is also interesting that today the army cannot recruit enough young men with a normal weight, yet none of the research focus of DOD is on lifestyle interventions and solutions to the rising BMI of the nation (and the army recruits). 

Make no mistake, the other major funding agencies do not differ in their focus: they all myopically stare at the consequences, rather than tackling the real causes. 

Can we influence the decisions on how donations and taxpayers' money are being used? Probably.  But first we all need to realize what in fact really KILLS US: our lifestyle.