Proposal would cut cancer institute budget again
 

Great idea!
 

I was thinking about that just this morning.!!!..Maybe support a candidate with the understanding that we would like funds to be set aside for cancer research. Anyone with any ideas, please let us know. I would like Hillary Clinton be that candidate. Any suggestions??

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

I agree. Above is the website for Hillary and question of this sort can (and should) be asked of her so that we can spread the word. Perhaps we can 'flood' her blog with concerns about funds being cut?
Bobbi

A Different Perspective...
 

Hi-

I would like to mention that the NCI is not the only organization receiving funds- There are dozens of not-for-profit cancer organizations doing their part too. Many private donations are not counted in the overall cancer bank.

Keep in mind the army (through the Dept of Defense -DOD) allocates over $120 million dollars annually to combat specific cancers (Breast, ovarian, colon). These funds are for research for succesful applicants in our nation's cancer centers and teaching hospitals. All money does not go to the microscope end of things, rather to pay the graduate student that spends an entire year focused on a specific project, or the department that needs equipment to enhance its technology in order to better study new cancer treatments...etc...

Only 15 applicants out of 65 regarding new breast cancer research were funded out of the DOD. Not because of lack of funding, but because these were the only ones that showed innovation. So, instead of some universities getting funds that were going nowhere, the places that showed technologic improvement got the bucks. Money well spent.

Money is tight- but I would rather have the Fed control the dollars by scrutinizing the fund requestor than just open the flood gates and waste the funds on useless causes or projects that have been studied to death yet present themselves again under new titles. This happens ALL THE TIME.

I know some things can be done better- and improvements have been made- but just throwing money at a problem really does not make the problem go away. Imagine where we would be if only ONE got the money- the competition would be fierce and we would be closer to a cure.


Maria (MTS)

Hi,

Well, yes there are other organizations that receive funding for research, not-for-profits are needed, a neccessity, now more than ever. Repetition in studies that have long since come to reasonable conclusion does exist, but these rarities are not what is being talked about here.

I can't imagine thinking an administration that repeatedly cuts funding for health and human services can even be remotely thought of as opening the flood-gates. This administration only finds floodgate switches for things that benefit... well you know the rest.

It gets worse, Bush signed an executive order that puts a political appointee into decisive roles of government offices dealing with Health, Safety, Environment, and (surprise) Civil Rights and Privacy. (N.Y. Times 1/29/07)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/wa...er&oref=slogin

This means that where once upon a time all of these issues were influenced by civil servants and scientific experts, now the influence comes from someone who will promote this president's priorities in lieu of pesky evidence and facts that lead to opposing positions (for those of you who don't know his priorities, trust that you are not one of them) What do you think that will mean for all of us?
This is the most embarrassing regime...uh, administration, that we've ever soiled ourselves with.

So, count on more cuts, less research, don't dream of innovations or even mention (gasp!) certain cells, ...and wave that flag.

Only 720 days left....

http://www.backwardsbush.com/

Most Sincerely,
Kevin

(off to write to Hillary)

OK. I may offend a few with this reply, but this article is absolute crap.

What is not mentioned in the article, is that since 2001 (Bush's first budget) the funding for the NIH (parent of the NCI) has increased from $20.5 Billion to $28.5 Billion in 2006. The budget increased every year during this period The specific funding for the NCI has increased by about $1.1 Billion over this same timeframe, with each year seeing an increase until 2006.

The cut in the NCI budget of $36 Million is a miniscule amount when talking about a budget in the Billions of dollars. At the same time, funding for things like genetic research (which can potentially help cancer patients) bird-flu and other influenza pandemics is increasing. The total 2007 budget request for the NIH is $28.5 Billion.

To say that the administration cuts funding repeatedly is just factually untrue. We are now facing threats (not just terrorist) that were not taken seriously just a few years ago. The potential of some of the virulent influenza, SARS and bird flu strains to kill millions must be taken very seriously. I think the administration is making difficult decisions to re-allocate some funding to research in this area, while not breaking the budget.

In addition to the billions spent by the NCI, there is an additional $127.5 Million spent by the DOD on cancer research. If I really wanted to ruffle feathers, I could state truthfully, that during the Clinton administration, the DOD cancer research funding was cut from $210 Million to $25 Million. This is a larger cut than the cut proposed in the current budget, and is even larger because these were 1995 dollars.

Sources: http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/KFa...20-%202006.pdf

Note: if you visit this page, remember to add 000 to the end of each dollar amount.

http://www.natlbcc.org/bin/index.asp...ptid=3&btnid=2

I am not offended in the least. Good to have all the facts before casting stones. This can all be too confusing to those not informed. Thanks for sharing further facts.

et tu?

yes, everything is much better now, what was I thinking? Thanks be... Guess I'll go mount a flag on the S.U.V. and start getting patriotic.

Facts are fun. There's more than enough to hold against this administration. An amazing defense is to assume that those who are not in agreement with this government are either ignorant or un-patriotic. Truly embarrassing.


Kevin

My oncologist is no flaming liberal, but his opinion is that the cancer research funds are part of cuts in social spending to fund the Iraq war and support our tax cuts (My refund wasn't much, frankly). Of course, the onc has a bias about cancer research. What an enormous saving in health care spending there would be if we found a cure for cancer.

Politics, politics, politics... they do tend to dampen the spirit of what this website is all about.

I do think we are all in agreement that cancer is a nasty disease regardless of the political affiliation of those who are afflicted by it.

My opinions regarding the DOD are based on the fact that I (yes, me, little schmo breast cancer patient) served on the panel that helped allocate the millions from the DOD to the well deserving 15 out of 65 institutions that qualified for grant dollars due to their innovative studies and research. The other 50 did not get anything because again, they were old research in a new disguise.

The intent of the DOD is to follow the congressional (bipartisan) thought that money was being wasted on re-inventing microwaves and downsizing mammo machines (which are obsolete -according to EVERY scientist on the panel) and other repetitive studies costing millions. Those decisions were projected by the panelists not the the government. I feel really proud that I serve on the DOD panel and that my decisions are helping find a cure for breast cancer.

I also became very aware there are very few qualified scientists in this country that are able to really provide the brain power to create new diagnostic methodologies and treatments... For the scientists that were there -studying the grants by judging whether they were based on "good science", I commend their efforts for keeping the program alive. Those dollars are the "seed" money for kick-starting pretty much the bulk of scientific research for breast cancer. Of those 15 institutions, only 3 or 4 will come away with a true innovation that will change how breast cancer is treated and or diagnosed. Then it goes through the FDA approval process and then we the people get it. All this is from our government dollars. Money well spent.

If anyone has a better way- prey tell.

My goal is to inform based on fact, not innuendo, insult or defamation of others' political affiliations. Really now, who cares? All that stuff has absolutely NOTHING to do with breast cancer. We are all in this boat together.

I will now get in my Hummer with my pink ribbon magnet that is next to my Save the Manatee license plate and go to the supermarket three miles away.

Is this country great or what?

Maria

True. Politics can divide people. It can also make strange bedfellows. I am going to run Maria's comment on "old research" by my oncologist to see what he says. I am so glad that cancer patients are represented on the research proposal review teams.

MJo,

The panel of which I speak is the panel that Joe brought to the attention of the members of this board last year. It is truly a very exciting opportunity to see first hand how funding is distributed. The program is a bit intense- but well worth the time one needs to read the proposals and score them. You must have the dubious honor of being a breast cancer survivor in order to serve. The program picks-up the cost of hotel and airfare.
I was able to meet some of the top scientists in the nation... all their experience and knowledge condensed into one room was really cool. They knew they were doing something really important that would inevitably affect hundreds of thousands of breast cancer patients (and future ones). I came away with an entirely new perspective on how and who is at the front end of finding a cure.

Anyone on this board can apply to serve on the panel... I hope more of us try the next time the panel "advertises" positions.

Warmly,

Maria