Sir

I would like to add some points to your excellent News Feature on biomedical philanthropy (Nature 410, 140–143; 2001), which highlighted the fact that high-risk research not funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly being supported by philanthropists.

First, the NIH system is one of the best biomedical research funding systems in the world. NIH support of research and research training has catalysed much of the explosion of biomedical knowledge over the past few decades.

Second, the NIH and other US agencies have freely allowed investigators to patent technological discoveries made while they were supported by government funds, a policy responsible for the great success of many entrepreneurs. It is thus only fair that some of their good fortune is funnelled back to support basic research.

Third, over the past few years the NIH has been seeking and supporting high-risk research, for example the National Eye Institute's new R03 programme, the National Institute on Drug Abuse's CEBRA programme and the R21 programme of the National Institute of Mental Health and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Programme officers from each of these institutes have personally contacted me to inform me of these initiatives and to encourage me to apply. My own lab's high-risk work has received funding from both NIH and philanthropic sources.

Finally, and perhaps most important, the NIH system is only as good as the quality of peer review. If biomedical researchers are unhappy with the quality of the review process, we need only look to ourselves to improve it.