Hi, I'm Carole Cassidy at the Parkinson's Institute in California and I'm
new to the list.  We are another category of grant recipient--independent,
not-for-profit research institutes.  There are probably 200+ of us in the
US, but only a few focused on movement disorders.  Others look at cancer,
blindness, etc.etc., etc.

At 02:47 AM 6/25/98 -0400, you wrote:
>This question deserves a long answer but I can't keep my eyes  open  Here's
>a short one.  I worked for the Federal government for 4 years (Treasury
>Dept, Resolution Trust Corp)...  It is ludicrous to think any group of
>overpaid Federal government employees is going to discover the cures for
>diseases. After the bill passed last year I brought up this issue.  As it
>turns out, however, what the NIH does is fund and facilitate promising
>research by others, by those who make proposals for, and are awarded grants
>for, specific areas of research.  These are universities, college,
>individuals and corporations.  There are probably other categories of grant
>recipients
>        There is still unwanted additional work for the GS people: doing
>background checks, keeping track of the $, etc, who is STILL going to go
>home at 5:,  But least my previous vision of a bunch of them sitting around
>a conference table starring forlornly at a 100 BIG ones, at least that
>vision was false.
>
>BTW, when that guy from Harvard said it would take only 5 yrs to find cure
>diddn't he say with $100
>mm FOR EACH of those 5 years? Somone, please, corect me  if i'm wrong!
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Flemco- <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 1:39 PM
>Subject: Re: House Support for Parkinson's Disease
>
>
>>Linda,
>>
>>I may be wrong but what has the government ever cured?  They are causing us
>>more harm than good by proposing this drop in the bucket of $100M.  It is
>>just going to employ a lot of bureaucrats and subsidize more lobbyist, fund
>>raisers, and printers.
>>
>>It seems to me if there is financial reward, private industry will figure a
>>way and much more efficiently and much quicker. With a million parkies in
>>this country, we each could give $100 dollars to Hoffman -LaRoche or Eli
>>Lilly and they would put the $100M to a more useful purpose like pure
>>research with no lobbyists or politicians input.
>>
>>Any thoughts?
>>
>>Larry Fleming
>>[log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From:   Parkinson's Information Exchange
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>[log in to unmask]
>>Sent:   Wednesday, June 24, 1998 11:58 AM
>>To:     Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN
>>Subject:        Re: House Support for Parkinson's Disease
>>
>>Today's New York Times also reported today on the Approriations
>>SubCommittees proposal, as was cited earlier in the Washington
>>Post. It said that while the NIH budget would be increased, $2.6
>>billion would be cut from social programs - funding for Goals
>>2000 education programs would be cut in half, Low Income Home Energy
>>Assitance would be eliminated, the Summer Youth jobs program
>>would be terminated, and funding for tutoring disadvantaged
>>children would be cut.
>>
>>  The article went on to say that the President would almost
>>certainly veto this bill, and the stage could be set for a
>>standoff between the Republicans in Congress and the President,
>>similar to the one that shut down the government two years ago.
>>
>>   Is this what we really want? It seems like this bill has
>>more to do with political power struggles than funding the
>>Udall bill fully and finding a cure for PD.
>>
>>  Before offering any support to this proposal, I'd like  more
>>information about it. Perhaps someone from NPF, PAN, the
>>Parkinson's Alliance, etc. could respond?
>>
>>  The New York Times article appears on p. A17 of today's
>>paper or online  www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/
>>congress-spend.html
>>
>>Linda Herman
>>[log in to unmask]
>>
>
>