It would help our cause if we could obtain more like this
May 4, 1996
Dear Jim,
You have asked me to comment on whether I feel that targeting or "ear
marking" additional money for research in Parkinson's disease is
appropriate. I am not an objective bystander to this issue since a
large portion of my research has focused on Parkinson's for the past
25 years. However, let me share my thoughts with you.
In general, I think it is best not to target federal research
support, and I support the great bulk of federal dollars going for
research projects initiated by individual scientists or groups of
scientists. However, I also believe that when the threshold to
success is achieved, a judicious amount additional funding should be
allocated to achieve the goal. This is the case with Parkinson's
disease.
There is no other neurological disease about which we have
so much information. We know the location of the lesion and the
neurochemistry, electrophysiology, and anatomy of the vulnerable
neurons; we know about molecules that can cause these neurons to die
and others that will cause them to grow; we have an enormous set of
pharmacological tools with which we can manipulate the neurons; and
we can measure almost anything one would want to measure about them.
We operate from great strength.
There have been many breakthroughs in Parkinson's disease in the past
decade -- real advances in areas such as growth factors,
pharmacotherapy, surgical interventions, transplantations, and gene
therapy. There is no other area in neuroscience that is as fertile
as this one. Significant improvements in treatment may already be
available among procedures now in trials. And surely a cure is on
the horizon -- it is just a matter of pressing forward.
In determining how much to invest in Parkinson's disease it also is
important to remember that research in this area has traditionally
had a major impact on many other areas of clinical research. For
example, it transformed research on schizophrenia and also
introduced postmortem neurochemistry into clinical research. And the
impact extends into basic science as well. For example, research on
Parkinson's disease has served to focus the attention on dopamine and
on the striatum. Thus, by in pressing for more funding for a diease
that will affect an average of 1 out of every 100 individuals over
the age of 55 (something Congress and the public should be able to
relate to quite readily), one also is promoting research on a broad
range of basic and clinical issues.
Large numbers of people are already working in the area and others
are being trained. But in a great many cases the work is being held
back by an absence of dollars. I am sure I am no different from
dozens of other labs, using space that has gone unrenovated, working
with outmoded equipment, passing up outstanding students because
there are no funds with which to support them, having fellows slow
their work down to take care of minor chores because we cannot
afford to hire aides, and spending more than 25% of my time raising
money rather doing research. Give us more money and we can do more
work. The system is very far from being saturated.
In summary, I think targeting Parkinson's Disease research will
significantly reduce the suffering and associated expenses of those
who have the disease, and at the same time be good for a broad range
of neuroscience and thus for the country.
Best wishes,
Michael J. Zigmond
Professor of Neuroscience
and Psychiatry
May 4, 1996
Dear Jim,
You have asked me to comment on whether I feel that targeting or "ear
marking" additional money for research in Parkinson's disease is
appropriate. I am not an objective bystander to this issue since a
large portion of my research has focused on Parkinson's for the past
25 years. However, let me share my thoughts with you.
In general, I think it is best not to target federal research
support, and I support the great bulk of federal dollars going for
research projects initiated by individual scientists or groups of
scientists. However, I also believe that when the threshold to
success is achieved, a judicious amount additional funding should be
allocated to achieve the goal. This is the case with Parkinson's
disease.
There is no other neurological disease about which we have
so much information. We know the location of the lesion and the
neurochemistry, electrophysiology, and anatomy of the vulnerable
neurons; we know about molecules that can cause these neurons to die
and others that will cause them to grow; we have an enormous set of
pharmacological tools with which we can manipulate the neurons; and
we can measure almost anything one would want to measure about them.
We operate from great strength.
There have been many breakthroughs in Parkinson's disease in the past
decade -- real advances in areas such as growth factors,
pharmacotherapy, surgical interventions, transplantations, and gene
therapy. There is no other area in neuroscience that is as fertile
as this one. Significant improvements in treatment may already be
available among procedures now in trials. And surely a cure is on
the horizon -- it is just a matter of pressing forward.
In determining how much to invest in Parkinson's disease it also is
important to remember that research in this area has traditionally
had a major impact on many other areas of clinical research. For
example, it transformed research on schizophrenia and also
introduced postmortem neurochemistry into clinical research. And the
impact extends into basic science as well. For example, research on
Parkinson's disease has served to focus the attention on dopamine and
on the striatum. Thus, by in pressing for more funding for a diease
that will affect an average of 1 out of every 100 individuals over
the age of 55 (something Congress and the public should be able to
relate to quite readily), one also is promoting research on a broad
range of basic and clinical issues.
Large numbers of people are already working in the area and others
are being trained. But in a great many cases the work is being held
back by an absence of dollars. I am sure I am no different from
dozens of other labs, using space that has gone unrenovated, working
with outmoded equipment, passing up outstanding students because
there are no funds with which to support them, having fellows slow
their work down to take care of minor chores because we cannot
afford to hire aides, and spending more than 25% of my time raising
money rather doing research. Give us more money and we can do more
work. The system is very far from being saturated.
In summary, I think targeting Parkinson's Disease research will
significantly reduce the suffering and associated expenses of those
who have the disease, and at the same time be good for a broad range
of neuroscience and thus for the country.
Best wishes,
Michael J. Zigmond
Professor of Neuroscience
and Psychiatry
University of Pittsburgh
