Print

---

 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
>