Why isn't more money being invested into Stutter research/support?

Why isn't more money being invested into Stutter research/support? Why is investigating **stuttering** not attractive for researchers? In my opinion: Stuttering often looks smaller to the outside world than it feels from the inside. About 1% of people stutter overall (adult estimates vary and are often lower — around 0.6–0.7% in some studies), and many cases are mild or hidden. Because so many people who stutter are “light” or covert (they avoid words, substitute, or hide their disfluency), stuttering is frequently overlooked by the public and by policymakers. Therefore, to the public it doesn't seem to be a "bad" disorder when actually it's much worse than the outside world often thinks of us Most childhood stuttering resolves and will recover within two to three years after onset. SLPs seem to promote that after that period, stuttering is often for life Recent research with adults who stutter found alarmingly high rates of suicidal ideation — in one 2023 study, 67.9% of participants reported having experienced some suicidal thoughts. Those findings show stuttering can have serious mental-health consequences, even when its outward symptoms look “mild”. However, most stutterers don't know about this IMPORTANT fact (so policymakers wouldn't know about it either) And the people who do know, are not using this information to their advantage like spreading to the public to make it popular Part of the problem for research is measurement. That makes it harder to get clear, statistically robust data on things like subconscious mechanisms (needs, cues, decisions/actions and its manifestations) (think more in terms of psychological drivers, anticipation of errors to speak very subconsciously)— all of which are difficult to quantify. SLPs and the medical industry both influence what gets researched and funded. Some clinicians emphasize management and long-term therapy, which can give the impression that stuttering remission isn’t possible — and that discourages attention to stuttering remission research. Meanwhile, drug development is expensive and geared toward treatments that are commercially viable; a one-time or small-scale intervention for stuttering might not attract big industry investment. Stuttering remission is almost always achieved without medicine anyway, however, I think that the stuttering community seem to fixated on a special medical cure to treat the neurology part. If developmental stuttering is similar to Tourette’s — where psychological mechanisms play a major role — then it becomes very hard to study. Factors like anxiety, underlying needs, beliefs, anticipation, and subconscious “error” signals (which people who stutter may not consciously notice) are difficult to quantify, measure, and analyze in a statistically valid way. Some SLPs unintentionally promote the idea that stuttering remission is impossible and that the condition can only be managed with speech-therapy techniques. That mindset makes stuttering remission research less attractive to scientists and funders. Many SLPs still seem to hold an old-fashioned view that developmental stuttering is mainly neurogenic rather than driven by psychological or conditioned processes (needs, anticipation, and subconscious appraisal). Because those psychological factors are hard to measure, they’re often treated as less tractable for research and less convincing to the public and funders. Worse, SLPs can inadvertently reinforce the idea that “people don’t care” about stuttering — as if public indifference were a neutral or even positive sign. In reality, that perceived indifference has harmful effects: people interrupt us, finish our sentences, fail to listen to our full stories, and treat us unequally, which increases stigma and discrimination. When that misleading message from SLPs (that no one care about our stuttering) reaches policymakers and universities, it helps justify deprioritising stuttering research. \~\~ Your thoughts?