 |
 |
>>Interestingly, the (NIH) RFA does not mention the Udall Bill. Instead there are a few sentences which say that it is related to the priority given to chronic disabling conditions under the Public Health Service program "Healthy People 2000," which has been in place for several years. Can anyone explain this?<< I don't have an answer but one might surmise that the NIH is not interested in going out of its way to acknowledge a law that earmarks funding for a specific disease. They have fought earmarking all along and will continue to fight it. Nonetheless, the NIH is very well aware of the Udall bill and pressure in Congress regarding PD research as evidenced by >> in recognition of continuing Congressional interest to intensify and to expand basic and clinical research in Parkinson's Disease..."<< They are listening and reacting positively while maintaining a stance of inpartiality. Despite the failure of Congress to appropriate a specific dollar amount to PD research, we can take pride in the fact that a four year long effort by grassroots individuals and our professional advocates has produced real results. Had it not been for the Udall Bill there would have been no initiative to fund Centers of Excellence nor would there be acknowledgement of >>...recent research progress and opportunity<< We may not be getting all we want but we are making progress. In the coming year it may be tougher for us to keep up the momentum without a drive to pass a specific bill or to appropriate the funds that the bill calls for. Certainly, now is a good time to contact newly elected representatives who need to be educated about PD and the need for increased research. -Ken Aidekman Visit the Parkinson's Unity Walk website: www.parkinsonwalk.org Fund the Research. Find the Cure.