Persistence. Keep Knocking on the door. Our effort is a history of = people who have initially said no. We have a compelling case. Here's = a list of arguments to be made regarding earmarking: 1) Show them the funding disparity. Emphasis that a cure is close, that = we don't like earmarking either, but that previously earmarked diseases = have institutionalized themselves at NIH. =20 2) It is their (Congress) responsibility to give direction to NIH. We = don't want Congress to Micro manage NIH, but there may be legitimate = cases where NIH does not have the proper priorities. Congress can hold = hearings and determine if NIH is allocating sufficient funds for = Parkinson's. After listing to Parkinson's researchers tell of the = promise of a cure on the near horizon, they are not convinced, at least = we had a hearing. Simply ask them to keep an open mind with regard to = Parkinson's. 3) Senator Slater Gorton is philosophically opposed to earmarking but = stated until NIH comes up with a better method of allocating funds , he = will continues to vote for specific Disease funding for those diseases = which make a compelling case. 4) the following letter I feel is powerful stuff: Dear Jim, You have asked me to comment on whether I feel that targeting or=20 "ear marking" additional money for research in Parkinson's disease is =20 appropriate. I am not an objective bystander to this issue since a = large=20 portion of my research has focused on Parkinson's for the past 25=20 years. However, let me share my thoughts with you. In general, I think it is best not to target federal research support, = and =20 I support the great bulk of federal dollars going for research projects = initiated by individual scientists or groups of scientists. However, I=20 also believe that when the threshold to success is achieved, a = judicious=20 amount additional funding should be allocated to achieve the goal.=20 This is the case with Parkinson's disease. There is no other neurological disease about which we have so much=20 information. We know the location of the lesion and the =20 neurochemistry, electrophysiology, and anatomy of the vulnerable =20 neurons; we know about molecules that can cause these neurons to die =20 and others that will cause them to grow; we have an enormous set of =20 pharmacological tools with which we can manipulate the neurons; and =20 we can measure almost anything one would want to measure about=20 them. We operate from great strength.=20 There have been many breakthroughs in Parkinson's disease in the=20 past decade -- real advances in areas such as growth factors, =20 pharmacotherapy, surgical interventions, transplantations, and gene =20 therapy. There is no other area in neuroscience that is as fertile as=20 this one. Significant improvements in treatment may already be =20 available among procedures now in trials. And surely a cure is on the=20 horizon -- it is just a matter of pressing forward. In determining how much to invest in Parkinson's disease it also is =20 important to remember that research in this area has traditionally had=20 a major impact on many other areas of clinical research. For example,=20 it transformed research on schizophrenia and also introduced=20 postmortem neurochemistry into clinical research. And the impact=20 extends into basic science as well. For example, research on =20 Parkinson's disease has served to focus the attention on dopamine and =20 on the striatum. Thus, by in pressing for more funding for a disease =20 that will affect an average of 1 out of every 100 individuals over the=20 age of 55 (something Congress and the public should be able to relate=20 to quite readily), one also is promoting research on a broad range of=20 basic and clinical issues.=20 Large numbers of people are already working in the area and others =20 are being trained. But in a great many cases the work is being held =20 back by an absence of dollars. I am sure our lab is similar to many=20 others, using space that has gone unrenovated, working with=20 outmoded equipment, passing up outstanding students because there=20 are no funds with which to support them, having fellows slow their=20 work down to take care of minor chores because we cannot afford to=20 hire aides, and spending more than 25% of my time raising money=20 rather doing research. Give us more money and we can do more work.=20 The system is very far from being saturated. In summary, I think targeting Parkinson's Disease research will =20 significantly reduce the suffering and associated expenses of those =20 who have the disease, and at the same time be good for a broad range =20 of neuroscience and thus for the country. Best wishes, Michael J. Zigmond Professor of Neuroscience and Psychiatry