Brother, sounds like Project Mengele.

https://www.nih.gov/arpa-h/mission-concept https://www.nih.gov/arpa-h/resources https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ARPA-H-Concept-Paper.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ARPA-H-Fact-Sheet.pdf

i am finding more on this > https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ARPA-H-Concept-Paper.pdf Progress in medicine and health in recent decades has been driven by two powerful forces: pathbreaking fundamental research and a vibrant commercial biotechnology sector. Fundamental research is typically performed in university, nonprofit, and government labs, and is mostly funded by the federal government, largely through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). By steadily pursuing important fundamental questions in biology and medicine, scientists have made breathtaking progress in discovering the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying health and disease — often suggesting new ideas for clinical treatment. Genetic studies, for example, have discovered the genes responsible for more than six thousand rare genetic diseases, opening prospects for gene transfer or gene editing therapies, and pointed to new potential targets for therapy in common diseases, such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Such fundamental research is what economists term a public good, in that it produces knowledge available to everyone and thus requires public investment. Some have estimated that every dollar of federal investment yields at least eight dollars in economic growth, and every new therapeutic approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can be traced, in part, to Draft concept paper prepared by Dr. Eric Lander, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health. fundamental discoveries supported by NIH2,3. Given its outsized impact, robust federal investment in fundamental research remains crucial to both the health of the Nation and the American economy. DARPA as an Inspiration DARPA was launched in the wake of Sputnik with a singular mission: to make pivotal investments in breakthrough technologies for national security. By any measure, it has been successful in generating bold advances that have shaped our world. DARPA has played a key 2 https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/about-nih/impact/impact-our-nation.pdf 3 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29440428/ 4 https://www.phrma.org/Science/In-The-Pipeline 5 https://www.phrma.org/Report/Medicines-in-Development-for-Cancer-2020-Report 2 role in legendary projects, such as the Internet, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), self-driving cars, and has contributed to the development of many others, including messenger RNA vaccines. However, failure, especially failing early, and learning from that failure are also hallmarks of DARPA. DARPA has a distinctive organization and culture that contrasts with traditional approaches in biomedical research. It is a flat and nimble organization whose work is driven by approximately 100 program managers (PMs) and office directors. The PMs are often recruited from industry or top research universities, and they come for limited terms of 3-5 years. They typically bring bold, risky ideas, and they are encouraged to pursue them, mitigating risk through metric-driven accountability and by pursuing multiple approaches to achieve a quantifiable goal. It can support research at three stages (basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development); can fund efforts in multiple sectors (industry, university, national labs, and consortia across these sectors); can provide the critical mass of funding needed to tackle bold goals; and is empowered to promote collaboration and integration across performers. DARPA does not perform its own internal research. While proposals are reviewed on a competitive basis, PMs have authority to select a portfolio of projects intended to achieve a particular program goal. DARPA has long encouraged a culture that values a relentless drive for transformative technical results and a willingness to take risks. Notably, it does not focus on merely accelerating ordinary products to the market or making incremental progress, but on creating true breakthroughs. To act in this way, DARPA makes broad use of flexible hiring, procurement, and contracting authorities, provided by law. Although DARPA is an excellent inspiration for ARPA-H, it is not a perfect model for biomedical and health research. It serves the needs of a single customer, the DoD, and its mission is focused on national security. Its projects typically involve engineered systems. By contrast, health breakthroughs (i) interact with biological systems that are much more complex and more poorly understood than engineered systems, requiring close coupling to a vast body of biomedical knowledge and experience; (ii) interact with a complex world of many customers and users — including patients, hospitals, physicians, biopharma companies and payers; (iii) interact in complex ways with human behavior and social factors; and (iv) require navigating a complex regulatory landscape. ARPA-H can learn from DARPA, but will need to pioneer new approaches. DARPA-like Approaches at NIH NIH has some experience with running large, complex programs using DARPA-like approaches to drive highly managed, use-inspired breakthrough research. A classic example was the Human Genome Project, aimed at reading out the complete three-billion-nucleotide human genetic code. When the project began in 1990, the technology to accomplish the goal hadn’t been invented. By driving innovation, it was completed ahead of schedule and ultimately decreased the cost of 3 sequencing a human genome from $3 billion at the outset to $500 today6. While the exact estimates vary, it is clear that the overall economic return on investment has been enormous, with notable analyses estimating a nearly 180-fold return7,8. A very recent example is the NIH’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Within weeks, NIH created two highly effective programs. The Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) program is an unprecedented partnership with government, industry, non-profits, and academia to drive preclinical and clinical therapeutics, developing master protocols for testing prioritized compounds in rigorous randomized clinical trials. These efforts accelerated the development and testing of several of the vaccines that are now being widely used to help return the world to normalcy. The Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) program used an ‘innovation funnel’ approach to identify promising ideas for COVID-19 tests and support 32 new technology platforms that collectively are contributing 2 million tests per day, mostly at point-of-care9. Although these programs have been successful, they required bespoke solutions and herculean efforts to get them off the ground. Because NIH lacks a regular framework for such projects, many bold ideas are hard to realize. That’s where ARPA-H can help. And this , https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ARPA-H-Fact-Sheet.pdf III. Authorities needed by ARPA-H To accomplish its mission, ARPA-H will need many of the same authorities and flexibilities employed by DARPA and ARPA-E. • Like DARPA and the similarly-modeled ARPA-E, ARPA-H will need to hire individuals rapidly based on a unique skill set outside the typical civil service hiring system and pay those individuals a competitive wage, including those in administrative or management positions for the agency. [42 U.S.C. 16538(g)(3)(A), (C), and (D); 10 U.S.C. 1599h (b)] • Like DARPA, ARPA-H will need to recruit expert program managers from industry, academia, and think tanks to lend their skills and knowledge to the government for 3-5 years, with adequate protections for both the government and the individual. [10 U.S.C. 1599g] • Like DARPA, ARPA-H will need broad, flexible funding authorities that make it possible to mix and match from the best ideas within different applications with minimal bureaucracy [42 U.S.C. 282(n)], that allow for projects that don’t fit neatly into one-year intervals [41 U.S.C. 3903], that allow for funding distribution over multiple years [42 USC 16538(o)], and that provide a mechanism to challenge scientific teams and industry players to compete. [10 U.S.C. 2374a] • ARPA-H will need exemptions from traditional proposal review processes, which work well for much of the biomedical research ecosystem, but can take 18 months or more to get from idea to workshop to concept clearance to funding announcement to application to first, and second level scientific review before the actual work even begins. [42 U.S.C. 289a and 42 U.S.C. 284a]

@RealPOdPatriot , i think our guy is all over this one.... i could sure use assistance in confirming it .