| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
06 Feb 2006 10:05:43 AM |
| Object: |
Republicans endanger cancer research |
From The Washington Post, 2/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/05/AR2006020501058.html
Cancer Research in Danger
By Martin D. Abeloff and Edward D. Miller
For medical researchers, the National Institutes of Health is a
formidable economic engine that powers this country's scientific
advances.
It hands out grants to more than 212,000 investigators at more than
2,800 universities, medical schools and other research institutions.
It is the lifeblood for studies leading to vaccines, antibiotics and
new treatments for some of humankind's most devastating illnesses.
In the late 1990s and beginning of this decade, Congress and the
president rallied around a plan to double the nation's research
commitment in just five years.
It's no accident that this surge of research dollars led to remarkably
rapid progress.
The five-year survival rates for many cancers are improving, and the
advances in laboratory, clinical and population research will clearly
accelerate this progress.
Unfortunately, however, the focus in Washington seems to be shifting
to other fiscal priorities.
In the past three budgets, research appropriations slowed dramatically
-- and recently they have diminished.
The NIH budget in the current fiscal year rose by less than inflation
for the second year in a row.
This meant a net loss of buying power, fewer research grants and
fiercer competition for the remaining dollars.
Even worse, decisions made over the past few months will result in a
net budget decrease for NIH -- the first cut in its budget in 36 years
and only the third in its history.
When combined with an expected 3.5 percent rise in biomedical costs
this year, Washington's decision to cut research funding hits
laboratory, clinical and translational investigations (which seek to
link medical research to its practical applications).
On an inflation-adjusted basis, the current NIH appropriation is
smaller than it was four years ago.
In constant dollars, NIH funding has declined by more than $1 billion
since 2003.
What a dramatic, and disturbing, turnaround.
Shrinking research support could have ramifications even for the
nation's best medical investigators.
For instance, five faculty members at Johns Hopkins's Kimmel Cancer
Center -- Bert Vogelstein, Kenneth Kinzler, James Herman, Stephen
Baylin and David Sidransky -- recently were recognized by Science
Watch newsletter as the most influential researchers in oncology,
based on the number of times their work was cited in scientific
studies in the past decade.
(An earlier report named Vogelstein the world's most-cited researcher
over a 20-year span, with a remarkable 106,401 references to his work
in other studies.)
All of these cancer investigators have depended heavily on NIH grants
throughout their careers.
All are working on highly promising projects.
Vogelstein and Kinzler are widely regarded as the leading experts in
molecular genetics and were largely responsible for defining cancer as
a disease of genetic mistakes.
They've invented genetic screening tests that identify people at high
risk of colorectal cancer.
Herman and Baylin are pioneers in a new field known as epigenetics,
the study of gene alterations that occur without DNA mutations.
They are credited with pioneering research into molecular changes that
can stop the formation of tumors.
Sidransky is a leader in the study of cancer biomarkers, which are the
earliest molecular changes in the cancer process.
His work led to the development of screening tests for cancer.
Though these five investigators are the best in their field, their
work could be slowed or greatly diminished by the squeeze in NIH
funding.
Scientists across the country have seen delays in processing grant
applications, elimination of cost-of-living allowances for multiyear
grants and cuts in continuing grants previously awarded.
For young researchers, there is the real danger that they may not
receive any NIH funding.
Some of our best and brightest young investigators -- the next
generation of Vogelsteins -- may leave the profession.
What a loss that would be for American biomedical research.
Given recent discoveries that have dramatically increased our
understanding of complex aspects of cancer, we are positioned to make
significant breakthroughs in the next decade -- but only if federal
support is strengthened.
We have reached a pivotal moment in medical history.
None of us wants to cut back on the exciting studies at the Kimmel
Cancer Center and other research programs.
Reducing and eventually eliminating the death and suffering from
cancer in all its forms would be a stunning achievement.
It is a goal our leaders should embrace with enthusiasm rather than
slowing financial backing for this nation's medical research.
_________________________________________________________
Thank you, Mr. presidunce.
Harry
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: Bush's betrayals endanger USA, say Experts
Data Stolen From U.S. Afghan Base Endanger Spies For U.S.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz endanger the U.S.
Re: Bush's betrayals endanger USA, say Experts
State: Easier permits endanger wetlands
Almost 500,000 pounds of Methane Moose Farts and Belches Every Single Year From Only Norway, endanger Earth
Bush's bungles endanger American citizens.
Re: Bush's betrayals endanger USA, say Experts
| Re: Bush's betrayals endanger USA, say Experts
Antiwar liberals endanger the Pelosi Democrats.
Slick Willie Frist to get Repugs to back Bush on torture and endanger GI lives
Republicans truly hate democracy. They just don't trust folks.
Re: U.S. Republicans Want Iraq Weapons Probe
Re: Republicans, aren't you ashamed?
Re: Why John Kerry terrifies Republicans.
|
|
|
