 |
 |
The June 13, 1996 issue of the science journal NATURE has as article (p.542) with the title "NIH resists bill to promote research into Parkinson's." The article describe the current political activity focused on the Udall bill and cites a Senate aide as describing the bipartisan list of co-sponsors as a "dream" list. The article also has some quotes from Harold Varmus, director of NIH, who opposes the bill, saying that advances in PD research won't come from more funds directed at PD research but from "work that is generic to all nerve cells". Varmus also states that he does not think the NIH can "responsibly fund" ten PD research centers as required by the bill. Finally Varmus calls for keeping the NIH as free as possible from restrictions requiring that money be spent on certain diseases. It strikes me that this article, which will be widely read, is important for two reasons: (1) it shows that we are becoming much more visible (good for us!), and (2) it describes what arguments we will have to confront from the NIH. Any ideas on how to respond to Varmus, who will surely make his opinions known to Congress? Let's be prepared to deal with his arguments against the bill. Lynn Walker [log in to unmask]