RTK.NET Mail 157410 May 24 23:10:41 1996
RTK.NET Mail 157379 May 24 20:17:46 1996
Camilla, that is a frustrating response, but if Boehner doesn't cosponsor
you should feel proud of the work you and others you've encouraged have
done. Just the fact that he felt he needed to lay out his objections to the
bill that specifically is a tribute to your persistant efforts. I think it
also shows that the grassroots support is stronger than he suggests, but
I'm afraid we do need to do more educating in order to get greater support
from beyond the Parkinson's community.
Re the "legislators should let the scientists make the funding decisions"
argument, I offer a few comments (this argument is my main foe with
Steny Hoyer, so I appreciate learning what other legislators are saying
and how other activists are addressing the issue):
I heard third or fourth hand that Slade Gorton said something like this
when he recently agreed to cosponsor: "I oppose the micromanagement of
NIH through earmarked funding, but I also know I'm not going to change
things overnight. The Udall bill will correct some of the inequities in
research funding that have resulted from this micromanagement." Along this
line, I point out that merely refusing to introduce new disease-specific
legislation does not end the problems resulting from earmarked funding
since the major diseases which have received this attention will continue
to get more money from those, like Parkinson's, that have been overlooked.
Until legislators and scientists develop a plan for reevaluating research
priorities and reallocating funding, not funding the Udall bill will only
prolong the inequities.
At the forum, Mort Kondracke responed to my question on this issue by saying,
"Any government agency will try to convince legislators that it would be
better off having complete autonomy and spending its funds as it sees fit, but
that doesn't mean they really would serve the public better without
restrictions from congress."
Dr. Ole Isacson (also at the forum) said that although it would be
inappropriate for Congress to decide which research was good science and
which grants should be approved, it is entirely appropriate for congress
to set a direction that points to especially promising areas of research.
I'm another letter to Hoyer and planning for a group visit to his office.
I'll let you know if I come up with something you might find helpful.
Good luck,
Sherri
[log in to unmask]
TO: caves
Author: caves
Subject: Re: Udall resistance!--"micromanagement" arguments
Message: 157375 Created: May 24 19:48:30 1996 Size: 2220
Answers: Mail No :157359 May 24 18:31:20 1996 From inet:PCFLINTE@miam
iu>> on Udall resistance!
Read by: caves : at Fri May 24 20:12:08 1996
Printed: Fri May 24 20:16:31 1996
TO: caves
Author: caves
Subject: Re: Udall Resistance! Micromanagement argument
Message: 157379 Created: May 24 20:17:46 1996 Size: 2601
Printed: Fri May 24 22:58:49 1996
