 |
 |
Linda J Herman wrote: > In all of these reports the wording is much more detailed and > stronger than what appeared in the Omnibus Budget Agreement, and > also requires the NIH to report back to Congress on it's progress > on implementing the Udall Act. Perhaps the final wording was > purposely vague, or was a result of the "big rush" to finish the > budget? And I didn't pay attention and wrote: > I am hoping that we will find the same language somewhere in the > omnibus conference report whenever we can access the final version. Sorry, I see that *was* the final version. Linda asked > Can these reports provide encouragement, guidance, pressure etc. > on the NIH to implement the provisions of the Udall Act? Good question for Mike Claeys. I am hopeful, because PD is now as much on the minds of members of Congress as other diseases thanks to the Udall effort. And even if the requirement to report to Congress in 120 days on the NIH plan to implement the Udall act is gone, still NIH is required to report to the House Appropriations Committee every year in connection with their budget request for the next year, citing accomplishments for the past year and justifying the budget for next year. The designation of the three PD Centers is sure to be mentioned. Linda noted that the reports mentioned PD in connection with other Institutes besides NINDS. Several others are involved - Aging, Mental Health, the Genome Project, and Environmental Health, because PD has all these aspects - a brain aging process gone haywire, often resulting in dementia, with a combination of genetic and environmental causes. PD research can be funded by grants from any of these Institutes. These other Institutes conduct research at NIH labs as well. I even recall seeing a research article on PD written by an NIH scientist in the Eye Institute, where something in the brain relevant to PD was discovered. Phil Tompkins Hoboken NJ age 60/dx 1990