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
