 |
 |
It seems to me that this tactic (lumping together) could backfire on us. First, diseases related to PD are other movement disorders like PSP, essential tremor, dystonia, etc., so research on PD is not unlikely to spill over in terms of ultimate benefits. Research on other neurological diseases are less likely to benefit us or vice versa and, in the case of Alzheimer's and ALS, actually already receive MUCH more funding per patient that PD. The PAN disparity chart showing NIH funding by disease is mind-boggling! The second point is that the NIH philosphy is exactly what you've described and what the Udall Act is trying to counteract. NIH feels that "the high tide floats all ships" so increasing their overall budget will help everyone. That's true to an extent, but would still leave us with the same old disparity that exists today in terms of research focused on a single disease. Mike Claes' message about sticking to a single message: FUND THE UDALL ACT is the most important thing we can do! Carole Cassidy At 06:13 PM 7/8/98 EDT, you wrote: >Bruce, you make a good point, and gave me an idea: Human nature is to over >simplify things, so for example, Parkinson's may be lumped together with >Alzheimers, ALS, DT's etd. WHy not use this to advantage whenever funding is >requested for Parkinson's causes, make sure to add, "and other related >diseases and conditions" or something similar? Could it hurt?. >[log in to unmask] > >