I know of no evidence that the National Institutes of Health - scare quotes or not - is out looking for trivial diseases in an effort to promote its own existen

I know of no evidence that the National Institutes of Health - scare quotes or not - is out looking for trivial diseases in an effort to promote its own existence. Its extramural granting program has been remarkably successful and is the crown jewel of U.S. biomedical sciences. Its prioritization process is largely (if sometimes imperfectly) aligned with causes of mortality and morbidity. That said, translational and implementation research is often more poorly funded which is in part why getting from evidence to clinical practice to widespread societal adoption is problematic. Especially in the biomedical sciences, evidence is actually a poor and lagging predictor of diffusion of innovations; so the fact that good evidence is widely available while adoption is slow shouldn't be surprising at all. Of course, having a functioning health care system where the incentives are all aligned toward healthy persons would help, too.