PLEASE SPELL THE WORD IN LINE TWO . . . . . UNACCEPTABLE On Tue, 9 Jul 1996 [log in to unmask] wrote: > Contact such as yours with Bradley is very important. I suggest you > use the term UNEXECPTABLE when he says they are not going to target > specific diseases. How can he ignore the 49 cosponsors in the Senate > and the 188 in the House? Have you seen Dr. Zigmond's letter? I'll > attach. It's compelling stuff. I suggest you call Bradley every > week to make sure we've got his attention. > > This brings to mind an initiative I've been thinking about. Would > all of you on this list who have had personal contact with a > Congressman, Senator, or their aides please drop me a brief note > outlining that contact. I would then ask you to consider calling > that office once a week with a Udall Bill update which PAN will > prepare. We simply must focus attention on this bill or it will get > overlooked. > > My wife has a quote Andrew Jackson she likes "One man with conviction > is a majority". Barbara, if you are the only person in Kansas, that > means you have to speak a little louder. Don't be discouraged. their > are a lot of us who have worked very hard to get this bill this > far. You being from Kansas makes your voice with Kassebaum's > committee more important than others. Make sure they hear you loud > and clear--PASS THE UDALL BILL IN 1996. give Parkinson's funding > equivalent to other disease groups, a cure is near and with it > tremendous savings both in economic term and human suffering. Given > that, HOW CAN THEY NOT PASS THE UDALL BILL? > > Zigmond's letter: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 disease > 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 our lab is similar to many > others, 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 > > Michael >