 |
 |
Sheri, Thanks so much for your interest and support. Your professor must have made quite an impression on you! It's been difficult to mobilize enough people with pd to actively lobby for the Udall bill, let alone someone without our "vested interest." Your thoughts and arguments make a lot of sense, from a purely logical viewpoint. I think, though, that we need to keep in mind that we're dealing with politicians here, and therefore nothing is what it seems to be. I don't mean that to sound cynical; it's just that they have their own agenda which has nothing to do with the merits/demerits of a puarticular bill. I've been asking myself what Nancy K.'s agenda might be, and I think you may have inadvertantly hit on it when you remarked that, although the MO (as we call the Udall bill here in Missouri) does allocate the preponderance of funds to research, it's not at the NIH. If she'e committed to bolstering their budget and encouraging recognition for their scientists, she might oppose a bill that gives "equal time" to possible competition. Mmm..interesting thought. I don't know if the archives you consulted have a copy of the letter sent by a friend of a friend in Kansas. Since he was a constituent, a Lutheran minister, and a personal acquaintance, he got a more detailed letter than the rest of us. Although I received a response, most of her non-constituents did not. I'll try to forward Pastor Ted's letter. Once again, thanks for your help. Pat Schark