This question deserves a long answer but I can't keep my eyes open Here's
a short one. I worked for the Federal government for 4 years (Treasury
Dept, Resolution Trust Corp)... It is ludicrous to think any group of
overpaid Federal government employees is going to discover the cures for
diseases. After the bill passed last year I brought up this issue. As it
turns out, however, what the NIH does is fund and facilitate promising
research by others, by those who make proposals for, and are awarded grants
for, specific areas of research. These are universities, college,
individuals and corporations. There are probably other categories of grant
recipients
There is still unwanted additional work for the GS people: doing
background checks, keeping track of the $, etc, who is STILL going to go
home at 5:, But least my previous vision of a bunch of them sitting around
a conference table starring forlornly at a 100 BIG ones, at least that
vision was false.
BTW, when that guy from Harvard said it would take only 5 yrs to find cure
diddn't he say with $100
mm FOR EACH of those 5 years? Somone, please, corect me if i'm wrong!
-----Original Message-----
From: Flemco- <[log in to unmask]>
To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: House Support for Parkinson's Disease
>Linda,
>
>I may be wrong but what has the government ever cured? They are causing us
>more harm than good by proposing this drop in the bucket of $100M. It is
>just going to employ a lot of bureaucrats and subsidize more lobbyist, fund
>raisers, and printers.
>
>It seems to me if there is financial reward, private industry will figure a
>way and much more efficiently and much quicker. With a million parkies in
>this country, we each could give $100 dollars to Hoffman -LaRoche or Eli
>Lilly and they would put the $100M to a more useful purpose like pure
>research with no lobbyists or politicians input.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Larry Fleming
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Parkinson's Information Exchange
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>[log in to unmask]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 11:58 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN
>Subject: Re: House Support for Parkinson's Disease
>
>Today's New York Times also reported today on the Approriations
>SubCommittees proposal, as was cited earlier in the Washington
>Post. It said that while the NIH budget would be increased, $2.6
>billion would be cut from social programs - funding for Goals
>2000 education programs would be cut in half, Low Income Home Energy
>Assitance would be eliminated, the Summer Youth jobs program
>would be terminated, and funding for tutoring disadvantaged
>children would be cut.
>
> The article went on to say that the President would almost
>certainly veto this bill, and the stage could be set for a
>standoff between the Republicans in Congress and the President,
>similar to the one that shut down the government two years ago.
>
> Is this what we really want? It seems like this bill has
>more to do with political power struggles than funding the
>Udall bill fully and finding a cure for PD.
>
> Before offering any support to this proposal, I'd like more
>information about it. Perhaps someone from NPF, PAN, the
>Parkinson's Alliance, etc. could respond?
>
> The New York Times article appears on p. A17 of today's
>paper or online www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/
>congress-spend.html
>
>Linda Herman
>[log in to unmask]
>
