 |
 |
Bob- I think that orientation is necessary and agree with it as a part of the requirements. This committee must be able to look at the entire mission of NIH. While one might be a representative for PD in the sense of wanting PD to get its fair share it would be grossly unfair to not look at the whole budget and health research priorities. I think that is what happened to us before and necessitated the Udall Act. While I fervently support the Udall Act it is a failure of NIH that it was needed at all. It is our self interest not to need to put our energies into fighting for equity in research funds with other diseases and instead put our energy into educating ourselves and the public about PD. The struggle for the committee member is the same as that of the Senator who is challenged with the choice of whether to support an clearly unneeded military base in his state. Is he a statesman and vote for what is right for the country or is he a representative of the economic interests solely of his state and vote for the pork barrel. It certainly isn't easy but what is necessary is clear. Charlie robert l dolezal wrote: > This, it seems to me, would be difficult to write: > > "4. A statement of assurance that, if selected, the individual will: > (a) agree to participate fully in activities of the COPR, and (b) > subordinate individual disease-specific or program-specific > interests to broader, cross-cutting matters of importance to the NIH > and its commitment to public representation." -- ****************************************************************************************** Charles T. Meyer, M.D. Middleton (Madison), Wisconsin [log in to unmask] ******************************************************************************************