Ken Aidekman signs his e-mail, "Fund the Research. Find the Cure." Ken, I couldn't be more in agreement with you. But we need something in our arsenal that will make a better case against those who say that Congress should not be micromanaging the N.I.H. budget. There seem to be three forces to control here: Science, politics, and economics. 1. The scientists say that they know how best to spend the money that they are allotted because they know science better, and Director Varmus has been praised by many regarding his control over the achievements of N.I.H. Your recent posts, Ken, might indicate that different people might judge his accomplishments differently in regards to their scientific value. That is to be expected, and whether or not Varmus and his staff have done well is a matter that could be debated. But just as the scientists say that they know science better, are they also able to claim that they know politics and economics better too? In a similar vein, the military spends lots of money and various of its programs are under scrutiny by the Congress. Whether the military or the Congress is the better judge of how to spend the money, it is the Congress that is ultimately responsible for the expense. Hence Congress sets goals for the military, appropriates money for military programs, and monitors the progress toward the goals. Even if Congress knows less about war and defense than those in the military establishment, it is the responsibility of Congress to create the goals and control the money. When we talk about earmarking funds for use by the N.I.H., we are not talking necessarily about micromanaging the projects; we are talking about setting goals, appropriating money, and monitoring progress. This is the responsibility of Congress. Were Congress not to set up guidelines as to how the money should be spent, they would be abdicating their responsibility. Telling the N.I.H. that they should be spending about a hundred million dollars on Parkinson's is not micromanaging. Telling the N.I.H. exactly what and whose projects to spend it on is: I would agree that Congress should not get into such small detail. 2. The politicians generally work on the squeaky wheel principal, tending to put public funds where the public demand is highest. Our appeal to the politicians has been to try to drive home the point that those afflicted with Parkinson's, their families, and their friends make up a substantial portion of their electorate. Therefore the monies that we have requested should be appropriated and spent. Others have made the same case for other diseases. We have done well in this area by getting the Udall Bill passed. But this is not enough. 3. It is the ecomonics where we have our strongest case. According to Dr. Lieberman's testimony, the expenditure of $100 million per year for three years will most likely result in a continued payout for the U.S. government of $10,000 million per year in perpetuity. No - it will be more than that, for as the population ages, the savings will increase. Even if the assumptions be wrong, suppose it will take 5 years at $100 million and pay out only $5,000 million per year: you are not going to find many better investments. Where is the money coming from? Does it much matter for a payoff this great? I can't forget the suffering and say that it's not an issue. The scientific and political sides are important. But the economics alone are compelling for a responsible Congress to act upon. And the sooner it gets done, the sooner it pays off. Won't that be nice for our government - and for us too? Art ____________________________________________________________________ Arthur Hirsch {} [log in to unmask] {} Lewisville, TX {} 972-434-2377 ____________________________________________________________________ Always Remember This: Happiness Is Right, So Choose Happiness ____________________________________________________________________