WP: Cancer Research in Danger

[DeepModem Mom]

Cancer Research in Danger
By Martin D. Abeloff and Edward D. Miller
Monday, February 6, 2006; Page A15


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....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/05/AR2006020501058.html

[MountainLaurel]

It's a big deal here

I work at a medical center that does a lot of NIH research, and there are some serious concerns about the ability to retain the researchers we have (we rely on postdoctoral fellows who are mainly funded through grants) and continue existing projects.

[cantstandbush]

7. It's another misleading hype. Everytime resesarchers want more pay

they threaten to leave thier Fed institution. There is so much to inform about how the NIH system works it would take a really good and savvy journalist team who is familiar with the NIH to try to break it down so that folks on the outside would understand. Sometime ago, a RW hardliner suggested that NIH should block-grant the money the Feds give it. Divide among all the medical research institutuions by some kind of formula. The public would save billions and research might progress more rapidly. After having worked at the NIH for more than 40 years...that idea has more merit than one would think. The waste, abuse, scientific misconduct, nepotism, and hidden immigration systems that flourish there are mind boggling. Give NIH money and more and more buildings and parking lots go up. Give it some new mandates like bio-terrorism research etc. and the waste and abuse goes through the roof. All of this has been reported to Congress and others over the years but nothing changes...there continues to be one scandal after the other and Congress just helps to cover it up because....afterall, who can be against medical research? Everybody wants to live forever. But if you just examine the record...especially in cancer research from just 1960 to now, it would blow your mind about the money spent and the lack of similar progress. Remember, if a disease is "cured" there is no more need for all that money. Well, I have said enough...go search it out for yourselves, I've been tainted over the years and no longer can be objective. I have witnessed too much!

[LisaL]

21. What pay? About only 5-15 % of grants get funded now.

And with cuts, it's going to be less. So, only 10 % of research investigators will have money to support research. The grants pay salaries for students, post docs and technicians. And you are talking about researchers wanting wanting more pay? Well, that's just ludicrous.
What additional pay? People do not have money to support research without wanting more pay.

[Sacajawea]

34. Would you like to be offered $27,000 a year with 18 years' experience

and a BA degree in biology? That's what I was offered on Long Island a few years ago. All that gov't money sure isn't going to the people who actually DO the experiments!

[cantstandbush]

35. You are so right. All that money IS NOT going to the folks doing the

actual research. It's as much an elitest system as you will find anywhere with lots of young post docs used as the fodder to run the research machine including their ideas being used as original research for the well-heeled researchers who have what NIH calls "stature." Like I said, it's much too complicated to go into and people who don't want to understand won't.

[LisaL]

36. With the budget cuts, you won't have

post docs, technicians, or "well-heeled researchers". The post docs will have no way to get jobs.
The companies that make research equipment will go broke.
The money supports a lot of people, or should I say used to support a lot of people.
And the money do support people doing actual research. While 27,000 $ doesn't sound like much, considering the grant is supposed to pay for technicians, post docs, equipment and chemicals, I assure you not many "well-heeled researchers" are swimming in money.

[madrchsod]

1. sick people are a drain on the empire

those who do not live up to perfection are cast side for the good of the fatherland.

[cantstandbush]

8. So are "researchers." n/t

[LisaL]

24. Well, it's true. Research is not necessary. Education is not

necessary. After all, Neanderthals lived in caves and managed perfectly well. What age did they last to-30?
:sarcasm:

[Psephos]

50. Neanderthals (and Cro-Magnon) DID manage perfectly well

We could all learn a thing or two from them.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060158719/sr=1-1/qid=1139385799/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4247228-4282534?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Peace.

[converted_democrat]

54. My father in law is participating in a program that is about to lose its

funding.. He is participating in a trial for a melanoma vaccine that has actually stopped the 4th stage cancer in its tracks.. The problem is that the vaccine has to be redone every few months, and it works as long as he can get the vaccine.. He won't be able to get it anymore.. He's going to die, because they can no longer keep up the program.. If they could keep up the program he would live until he died from something else.. Now he's going to die needlessly because the program that was working for him is no longer going to be funded.. I don't care what you think of "researchers" they are keeping him alive, and making great break throughs.. Now he's literally going to die because of a lack of funding..

I have no idea how you can be so cold and callous about this.. My father in law is going to die over this, but you think it's a good idea so money isn't wasted.. :mad: I don't even have words to express how little I think of you..

[Bridget Burke]

2. Leave all the research up to Big Pharm!

Actually, pharmaceutical companies do sponsor some valuable research. But they ARE in it for the money.

We can't depend on them for basic scientific research. From the article:

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.

Nope--our tax dollars are going to fight wars & build detention centers.

[Lorien]

14. Big Pharma isn't interested in curing disease

only prolonging life-it's all about the $$$, after all. That why we NEED Federal research grants!

[LisaL]

33. The pharmaceutical companies are not taking away NIH money.

Bush needs them for wars.

[central scrutinizer]

3. Bushco plan to fix Social Security

Cut research - more people die at an earlier age - Social Security deficit solved!!! Brilliant

[Auntie Bush]

6. The Pres must be scared to death that someone might find a drug that will

prolong the life of Alzheimer's patients. It will surely save a hell of a lot of money if we DON'T discover anything. Social Security will go bankrupt when all those aging baby boomers with Alzheimer's live longer. I wouldn't put this kind of thinking behind them! Sometimes bush* shows a sliver of genius!

[LisaL]

23. I think he could care less whether someone can find a cure or not.

Just as long as he could bomb something.

[Auntie Bush]

26. I don't think he would care about them personally either ,but

he does care about the cost of Medicare and Medicaid and the less people in long term care means more money available for all those bombs he wants the use.

The needs of the poor and old are preventing him from protecting our freedoms and spreading Democracy. They must go...they are just a worthless expense on society and running up SS. Isn't that logical thinking for a Compassionate Conservative?

[LisaL]

31. Bush needs money to fight in endless wars.

Medicaid, Education, Medicare, Science- he does not care about. As long as we got enough money to make bombs.

[lovuian]

4. When it has to do with Research then Bush would kill it!!!

:argh:

[LisaL]

22. He is already doing a hell of a job in destroying research.

Obviously, with budget cuts, he is going to be doing a much better job of it.

[applegrove]

5. Don't compete with big Pharma. The market will take care of cancer -

with cures that work over the longest term possible (nothing quick).

Big Pharma will turn Cancer into a chronic annoyance.

And dam to those doctors who try and cut cancer out.

Cancer is your new friend!

[0007]

10. At least when one has cancer it's almost certain that one knows

where death is coming from.

[reprobate]

11. Big pharma doesn't look for cures, only treatments.

Cure a disease and you lose a customer. Treat a disease and you have a customer for the rest of his life.

[megatherium]

13. I don't buy that.

Pharma executives get cancer too. The reason we don't have a cure for most cancers (if your cancer is metastic, usually your prognosis is very poor) is because the biomedicine of cancer has proven intractible. The only tools we have that make any real difference for most cancer is prevention and early screening. If a cancer is caught early, surgery will be used if possible to effect a complete cure. A colleague of mine had prostate cancer; they removed the gland and ever since, no cancer whatsover.

A good example of how medicine works is provided by the fight against AIDS. In the mid 1990s, powerful new antivirals (an unprecedented medical advance) became available and had an immediate and dramatic impact on the disease. People spoke of the "Lazarus effect," where patients close to death regained their health. This provided a new model for treating AIDS: a chronic disease that patients can live with, similar to diabetes. Was this a conspiracy by the drug companies to turn AIDS patients into a big cash cow? No -- various logical paths to clearing the virus from the body of patients were tried, unfortunately without success. The virus splices itself into the genes of various kinds of cells. It was shown in the late 1990s that the new antivirals can only clear the virus completely from the body if all the infected cells die, which they will in time. But certain kinds of cells now known to be infected by HIV live for decades. Note some of this research (both on the original protease inhibitors and this work) was done by government researchers; some by big pharma.

[reprobate]

16. Yes, I'm aware of all of that. But most of the basic research into drugs

and diseases is done by Universities and other learning centers. Usually, the Pharma corps get into it only after the University research have proven a treatment, and then usually only in the testing phase, tho admittedly they do sometimes get involver earlier.

Before his passing my father was one of the board members of the National Cancer Institute. They were responsible for handing out the research funds to all the universities and other non-profit research centers. I can remember quite clearly, how the NCI felt about the Big Pharma corps. Suffice it to say they weren't very positive.

I, of course, don't believe that the researchers in the drug companies are at fault, and neither did the people I spoke with on the NCI. But the problem, in my view, is the corporate structure, which believes that their only goal in life, no matter the product of service of the corporation, is to increase dividends for THIS quarter. There is little long term planning and little question about how their plans effect their customers.

Here's just one example: Pfizer, maker of Lipitor, as their patent was due to expire went to congress and had a special law enacted to extend their patent. Pfizer is in the final testing stages of a drug that will work on the other type of cholesterol-increasing HDL-called Torcetrapib. They have already said-at least a year ago- that when Torcetrapib is released with it's patent, it will ONLY be available as a tablet in combination with Lipitor. The effect will be that if you want the HDL raising effect of Torcetrapib, you will have to take it with the Lpitor, instead of being able to buy the torcetrapib separately and one of the other LDL lowering generic drugs like lovastatin which is as effective and is orders of magnitude less expensive. Effectively keeping many people who can't afford the very expensive combination tablet from getting the clinical benefit.

Fortunately, there are other pharmas working on HDL raising drugs, just none as far along.

Sorry, for the rant. But American style Capitalism has almost succeeded in turning me socialist.

[megatherium]

18. The pharmaceutical companies are unfortunately meeting their

fiduciary reponsibility to make as much money for their shareholders as possible, and alas, they are very good at it. The remedy for this is to get rid of the corrupt politicians who made this possible, and put the pharmaceuticals under stringent regulations.

If being in favor of single-payer health care makes me a socialist, then I'm socialist.

[reprobate]

25. Thanks, megatherium. I think we agree more than disagree.

[LisaL]

30. What on Earth do pharmaceutical companies have to do

with any of it? Bush is cutting education, medicaid, research, while increasing the defense budget. You do the math.

[applegrove]

12. Like all government branches that have brilliant public servants & expert

Big business wants them all forced out of government so they do not have to compete. Can you imagine the horror if some government body found a cure to cancer? Or aids? CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT A NIGHTMARE THAT WOULD BE?:sarcasm:

[Angry Girl]

9. The Bushies know it's cheaper for cancer sufferers to die

The cost of treating them is phenomenally high, let alone the research going into it, and, as a country on the brink of ecnomoic ruin, it's a great way to cut costs. You think I jest?

Smoking can seriously aid your economy
Sarah Boseley and Kate Connolly in Berlin
Guardian - Tuesday July 17, 2001

Philip Morris, the tobacco giant, may have the answer to the nightmare problems that beset every government when it tries to balance the budget.

A report it has just sent to the Czech Republic suggests the country could save more than £100m a year in healthcare and pension costs because people who smoke die early.
<SNIP>
The company commissioned a Massachusetts-based firm of consultants, Arthur D Little International, to investigate the Czech market. It found the economy received a number of benefits from smoking. There was income from excise duty, and "healthcare cost savings due to early mortality".
<SNIP>
It is even possible Philip Morris felt it was being uncontroversial as far as the Czech Republic is concerned. In March last year, the prime minister, Milos Zeman, declared on television that "by smoking, I contribute to the stability of the state budget ... By buying cigarettes I increase state revenues, and I will die of lung cancer, so the state won't have to pay me a pension."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4222888,00.html

and more of the same here too
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1442555.stm

[KamaAina]

15. This has been today's "Culture of Life Moment"

brought to you by Bush**co, a wholy owned subsidiary ofThe Carlyle Group.

Unfortunately, however, the focus in Washington seems to be shifting to other fiscal priorities.

"Other fiscal priorities"? What might those be? I see a W, and and A, and now an R. Could it be -- WAR? To recap, "Stop saving lives. We need the money to kill people instead!" :grr:

[depakid]

17. Trouble is, Cancer's kind of a sacred cow

That takes away from much needed grants in other areas that would probably provide much higher net benefits to public health & wellness.

Obviously, though- inproving public health and/or advancing science is not the Republicans' purpose here.

[LisaL]

20. The only sacred cow for Bush is department of defense.

Everything else can go.

[Bridget Burke]

39. Cancer is a Sacred Cow until you get it.

Then you you will take it more seriously.

Why should money be taken from any kind of research OR from public health? We know that all of these programs are drops in the bucket compared to The War On Terror(tm).

Public Health involves things like early diagnostic tests. For example, existing treatments for breast cancer have a better chance for success if mammograms & other tests catch the disease earlier.

"Wellness"? Yes, it's great to educate people on lifestyle choices. But don't smugly believe that a vegan diet & positive thinking will give you immunity.

[depakid]

40. If more was spent on wellness oriented research & initiatives

among other things (like prevention and proper treatment of diabetes) then there'd be a whole lot less cancer (and other illnesses) in the first place.

Unfortunately, cancer research has always taken up WAY more than its share of healthcare resources- especially research grants, and is subject substantial diminishing returns both on scientific progress and overall suffering.

All I'm saying is that there are better and more efficient ways to allocate the limited resources we have.

[LisaL]

43. All NIH budget is a drop in a bucket compared to what we

spend on war.

[Bridget Burke]

52. The problem is the limited resources for science & health.

And the obscene amounts of money devoted to war. But you're fine with these priorites--you just think that some diseases are more "deserving" than others.

Much of the "cancer" research is basic science that may help other diagnoses, as well. Diabetes does NOT lead to cancer. Let me guess--you or some relatives are victims of diabetes? That is a dreadful disease, but not the only one.

[LisaL]

19. All research is in danger.

I work in research, and situation is very bad, and is only going to get worse. NIH budget being cut means the pay lines are going to be ridiculously low. Then researchers won't have a job, and companies that make research equipment won't have jobs. And of course I personally won't have a job. Well, thank you, Mr. Bush!

[sam sarrha]

27. it is all about the Pill Corporations preventing ANY CURES so they can

charge you rent on not dying, for the rest of what life outside of the side effects of your disease

[LisaL]

32. The pill corporations have nothing to do with it.

Isn't it freaking obvious? All the money go to defense. We need them for wars.

[sam sarrha]

37. it is both, campaign contributions were forcing cuts before the war

[LisaL]

45. Before the war, NIH had no cuts. It's budget had doubled under

Clinton. Now, it's all going downhill.
Not just cancer research, the rest of research too.

[Odin2005]

28. Big Pharma doesn't want cures and vaccines.

They want medicines that treat the symptons but doesn't cure or prevent the disease because it is more profitable.

:puke:

[LisaL]

29. It doesn't have anything to do with big pharma.

Where do you think money for defense come from?
Bush wants defense budget to increase, while cutting everything else.

[shrike]

38. They really do want to kill us, don't they?

Thing is, who will buy all the imported crap from Walmart?

[Critters2]

41. Settle, people!

We have a war to pay for!! All the rest of this frivolous nonsense--education, cancer research, food, clothing, shelter--will just have to wait. Get your priorities straight!

Thank you.:patriot:

[qwlauren35]

42. I realize that this is a rotten thing to say, but...

I think US government money is better spent elsewhere.

I am not sure that it is in the world's best interests to find more and more ways to prolong human life. We were meant to die; it is only the drive of the human ego that makes us want to thwart this reality.

I am also concerned about the excessive research poured into pharmaceutical solutions to health problems. What I'd like to see is more blind studies of holistic and natural curing agents.

Last... I think the US has more pressing issues that need our attention than cancer. They have to do with youth, the development of adolescents into adulthood (especially boys), etc.

Don't think that cancer hasn't affected me. My father and maternal aunt died of lung cancer, a paternal aunt died of breast cancer, another paternal aunt died of colon cancer, a maternal uncle died of pancreatic cancer, and now another aunt has metastisizing cancer. Most of them went within a 5 year period that rocked my entire family... but I STILL don't think that cancer research deserves as much money as we spend on it.

[LisaL]

44. We are spending the money elsewhere-Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Does that make you happy?

[qwlauren35]

46. No.

You're kidding, right?

Just because I think cancer research spending could be cut back doesn't mean I would agree with how Bush would spend the money.

Beyond basics, like what time it is and whether it's raining, I usually don't agree with Bush on anything.

To repeat something I heard from a co-worker, "Just because I like bushes doesn't mean I like the President." (Actually, he mentioned bush in the singular... I'm just trying to clean it up a bit.)

[LisaL]

47. You are not going to save a lot of money on cancer research.

Well, maybe enough to build a couple of bombs.
Is it really worth it?
I think not.

[leesa]

48. "Development of adeolescents into adulthood (especially boys)"...WTF does

that mean? Why grow em up if they're just gonna die anyway?

Perhaps you could wrap your wee little mind around the fact that we could spend this money and still spend on your pet projects too if we stopped spending an insane amount of money on the arms/war industry.

[sofa king]

49. Curious.

While it's true that poor people die of cancer more than wealthy people do, cancer still mostly affects those fortunate enough to live a long life.

Cutting health care, deregulating dangerous jobs, failing to protect people from natural disasters, and perpetual warfare are cornerstones of the Bush Administration. This is going to do its part in cutting the cancer rates among poor people--because they'll already be dead. Cancer, on the other hand, is on its way to becoming one more rich man's luxury. You would think, then, that cancer research would be a high priority for the Republicans, since someday soon they'll be the only ones who can afford to die from it.

Well, screw 'em all. I'm doing my part with the http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=48157">Democratic Underground protein folding team.

[Hekate]

51. Faith-based science and privatized research. What a surprise.

These * people are fools. Under this regime scientists are actually leaving the country for places that actually want to support them and their research (see most recent issue of TIME mag).

Hekate

[rfkrfk]

53. the smart people of Europe or Japan should be doing this

there is no place for Washington, in this matter