Dh is a research scientist and had applied to the Leukemia Research Foundation (who are controlled by CRUK) for a grant which was subsequently approved subject to agreeing terms.
He had an email from them today, to say that they cannot now release grant funds to him because "LRF is unlikely to accrue any financial benefit for an outlay in excess of £250K".
Basically, they wanted dh's university to agree that in the event of the drug making it to market, they would get 50% of the income. Note, income, not profit, so if the drug were successful and made for example 1 billion pounds, CRUK would take 0.5 billion pounds, even if it cost 0.5 billion to develop. Because of a previous deal, the technology is now owned jointly by the university and a commercial company so it was impossible for the university to agree to this.
Instead, LRF were offered, initially, double their grant back if the drug became marketable, and then, when they refused that, "milestone" payments at each stage of development. Basically, they refused to give the grant unless they were promised 50%.
Am I the only person to think that this is a totally inappropriate stance for a charity to take? What about potential patient benefit? All they seem interested in is profit.
Sorry for the rant, but I really felt that other people should know how they operate, that patients are being denied the possibility of new treatments because the charity won't get any financial benefit (of course, 500K is no benefit!).
I am so .