 |
 |
Hi, I'm Carole Cassidy at the Parkinson's Institute in California and I'm new to the list. We are another category of grant recipient--independent, not-for-profit research institutes. There are probably 200+ of us in the US, but only a few focused on movement disorders. Others look at cancer, blindness, etc.etc., etc. At 02:47 AM 6/25/98 -0400, you wrote: >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] >> > >