Persistence.  Keep Knocking on the door.   Our effort is a history of =
people who have initially said no.  We have a compelling case.    Here's =
a list of arguments to be made regarding earmarking:

1) Show them the funding disparity.  Emphasis that a cure is close, that =
we don't like earmarking either, but that previously  earmarked diseases =
have institutionalized themselves  at NIH. =20

2)  It is their (Congress) responsibility to give direction to NIH.  We =
don't want Congress to Micro manage NIH, but there may be legitimate =
cases where NIH does not have  the proper priorities.  Congress can hold =
hearings and determine if NIH is allocating sufficient funds for =
Parkinson's.  After listing to Parkinson's researchers tell of the =
promise of a cure on the near horizon, they are not convinced, at least =
we had a hearing.  Simply ask them to keep an open mind with regard to =
Parkinson's.

3)  Senator Slater Gorton is philosophically opposed to earmarking but =
stated until NIH comes up with a better method of allocating funds , he =
will continues to vote for specific Disease funding for those diseases =
which make a compelling case.

4)  the following letter I feel is powerful stuff: Dear Jim,

You have asked me to comment on whether I feel that targeting or=20
"ear  marking" additional money for research in Parkinson's disease is =20
appropriate.  I am not an objective bystander to this issue since a  =
large=20
portion of my research has focused on Parkinson's  for the past  25=20
years. However, let me share my thoughts with you.

In general, I think it is best not to target federal research  support, =
and =20
I support the great bulk of federal dollars going for  research projects =

initiated by individual scientists or groups of  scientists. However, I=20
also believe that when the threshold to  success is achieved, a =
judicious=20
amount additional funding should be  allocated to achieve the goal.=20
This is the case with Parkinson's  disease.

There is no other neurological disease about which we have  so much=20
information. We know the location of the lesion and the =20
neurochemistry, electrophysiology, and anatomy of the vulnerable =20
neurons; we know about molecules that can cause these neurons to die =20
and others that will cause them to grow; we have an enormous set of =20
pharmacological tools with which we can manipulate the neurons; and =20
we can measure almost anything one would want to measure about=20
them.   We operate from great strength.=20

There have been many breakthroughs in Parkinson's disease in the=20
past  decade -- real advances in areas such as growth factors, =20
pharmacotherapy, surgical interventions, transplantations, and gene =20
therapy.  There is no other area in neuroscience that is as fertile  as=20
this one. Significant improvements in treatment may already be =20
available among procedures now in trials. And surely a cure is on  the=20
horizon -- it is just a matter of pressing forward.

In determining how much to invest in Parkinson's disease it also is =20
important to remember that research in this area has traditionally  had=20
a major impact on many other areas of clinical research. For  example,=20
it transformed research on schizophrenia and also  introduced=20
postmortem neurochemistry into clinical research. And the  impact=20
extends into basic science as well. For example, research on =20
Parkinson's disease has served to focus the attention on dopamine and =20
on the striatum. Thus, by in pressing for more funding for a disease =20
that will affect an average of 1 out of every 100 individuals over  the=20
age of 55 (something Congress and the public should be able to  relate=20
to quite readily), one also is promoting research on a broad  range of=20
basic and clinical  issues.=20

Large numbers of people are already working in the area and others =20
are being trained. But in a great many cases the work is being held =20
back by an absence of dollars. I am sure our lab is similar to  many=20
others, using space that has gone unrenovated, working  with=20
outmoded equipment, passing up outstanding students because  there=20
are no funds with which to support them, having fellows slow  their=20
work down to take care of minor chores because we cannot  afford to=20
hire aides, and spending more than 25% of my time raising  money=20
rather doing research. Give us more money and we can do more  work.=20
The system is very far from being saturated.

In summary, I think targeting Parkinson's Disease research will =20
significantly reduce the suffering and associated expenses of those =20
who have the disease, and at the same time be good for a broad range  =20
of neuroscience and thus for the country.


       Best wishes,



       Michael J. Zigmond
       Professor of Neuroscience
        and Psychiatry