Prime Time Replay:
Congresswoman Nita Lowey
on Increasing Funding for Medical Research
MsgId: *breakthrough(4)
Date: Wed Apr 30 20:59:23 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.182.183
Hi, this is Madeleine Lebwohl, moderator for Breakthrough Medicine. Tonight I'll be speaking with Congresswoman Nita Lowey. Congresswoman Lowey has been a champion of funding for health care research. She has been a constant backer of breast cancer research and the overall NIH budget. Welcome, Rep. Lowey!
MsgId: *breakthrough(6)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:03:02 PDT 1997
From: Rep._Lowey At: 143.231.65.198
Hello Madeline. I'm pleased to be with you tonight.
MsgId: *breakthrough(7)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:08:21 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.182.183
Glad to have you here. Let's begin by discussing the impressive increase in funding that NIH got. Was this a battle in committee?
MsgId: *breakthrough(8)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:10:53 PDT 1997
From: Rep_Lowey At: 143.231.65.205
I think there is general agreement that NIH is an important priority. Of course, there are those on the Committee that are stronger advocates for NIH funding than others. There are many competing priorities so those of us who champion NIH always have to make a strong case.
MsgId: *breakthrough(9)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:13:43 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.182.183
How did everyone's constituent's input affect this? Were the advocacy groups, or individuals with particular diseases, vocal about wanting government support?
MsgId: *breakthrough(10)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:15:52 PDT 1997
From: Rep_Lowey At: 143.231.65.205
The advocacy groups are always very active when the Committee is considering biomedical research funding. They raise our awareness about particicular diseases and working with scientists can help to identify promising areas of research.
MsgId: *breakthrough(11)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:17:23 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.182.183
Where you contacted directly by groups as the bill took shape--did you let them know how things were progressing?
MsgId: *breakthrough(12)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:19:10 PDT 1997
From: Rep_Lowey At: 143.231.65.205
Actually, many of the advocates are present when the Committee marks up the bill. The "mark up" is a public meeting of the Committee members. This is when we actually work together to draft the bill.
MsgId: *breakthrough(13)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:23:22 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.182.183
The advocacy groups have shown great interest in getting their patients taken care of through government funding. What has been your experience with some of these groups?
MsgId: *breakthrough(15)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:24:54 PDT 1997
From: Rep_Lowey At: 143.231.65.205
I work with many groups. On breast cancer funding, I work closely with the National Breast Cancer Coalition. They train activists to make the most pursuasive case possible to Congress. One of the great success stories was several years ago when we won funding for breast cancer research throgh the Defense Department. If is wasn't for the National Breast Cancer Coalition and the 2.6 million signatures they delivered to Congress, this funding probably wouldn't not have become a reality.
MsgId: *breakthrough(17)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:30:13 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.182.183
This brings me to an area that many people find interesting--how you can actually get the money you need to help fund research, if you are a person with a disease. In the committee, did it seem to you that you would have had this kind of a success without all the attention?
MsgId: *breakthrough(18)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:33:41 PDT 1997
From: Rep_Lowey At: 143.231.65.205
Madeleine, there is no question that people make the difference. For example, I really give the breast cancer activists a lot of credit for increasing breast cancer funding. Did you know that in 1992, NIH spent less than $100 million on breast cancer? Now, it spends about $400 million. The women members of Congress working with the activists made breast cancer research a priority.
MsgId: *breakthrough(19)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:36:54 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.182.183
Were there any committee members who would have preferred to allocate funds in a different way? What is the argument people give when they don't want to fund research for disease?
MsgId: *breakthrough(20)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:39:42 PDT 1997
From: Rep_Lowey At: 143.231.65.205
Of course, everyone on the Committee wants to make progress on the breast cancer front, or on any disease front, for that matter. The issue is how do you make the best case for funding increases in an area that you think is a priority. Some may feel that we're spending enough on breast cancer. I believe, however, that we haven't made enough progress and that there are many scientific opportunities still awaiting funding.
MsgId: *breakthrough(21)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:42:21 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.182.183
You mention that some people feel they are spending enough on breast cancer. Is it ever realistic to say that you are proposing a level of funding that will result in a cure? And is there a lot of jockeying among different groups wanting more funding for their diseases?
MsgId: *breakthrough(22)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:44:41 PDT 1997
From: Rep_Lowey At: 143.231.65.205
While we certainly don't have a cure for AIDS, look at the exciting progress we are making. With the advent of protease inhibitors and other new drug combinations, people with AIDS and HIV are living longer than anhone could have imagined just a few years ago. Also, while a "cure" may be our ultimate goal, there are important milestones along the way that can save lives. For example, if we can improve detection technology for breast cancer, we can find tumors earlier and increase a woman's chance of survival. There are many avenues that can save lives along the road to a cure.
MsgId: *breakthrough(24)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:49:46 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.182.183
Is there any comprehensive bill in the near future that would assure funding for many diseases at the level that has been given to breast cancer?
MsgId: *breakthrough(25)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:52:26 PDT 1997
From: Rep_Lowey At: 143.231.65.205
One of the reasons we have worked so hard to increase funding for breast cancer is that we felt it was underfunded-that it wasn't getting the attention it deserved. However, we leave many decisions to NIH. They have plans to expand funding for other diseases based on where they believe the most productive opportunities lie.
MsgId: *breakthrough(26)
Date: Wed Apr 30 21:56:37 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.182.183
Considering the amount of people affected, its curious that breast cancer is still seen as belonging to certain constituents, and supporting it is sometimes seen as political. How did this happen, when whole families are affected when a family member has this disease? How do other diseases escape these labels?
MsgId: *breakthrough(27)
Date: Wed Apr 30 22:00:33 PDT 1997
From: Rep_Lowey At: 143.231.65.205
That is a good point, Madeleine. Breast cancer has been seen as a women's issue. But my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are increasingly aware of the breast cancer issue. Members on both sides of the aisle want to be seen as being good on "women's issues" so its identification as a women's issue may acutally be a positive thing right now.
MsgId: *breakthrough(28)
Date: Wed Apr 30 22:06:13 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.182.183
Well, I'm sure people who have breast cancer are happy that right now the support is there. Do you think support for NIH will continue at the present level or even increase in the future?
MsgId: *breakthrough(29)
Date: Wed Apr 30 22:09:49 PDT 1997
From: Rep_Lowey At: 143.231.65.205
There are so many competing budgetary priorities -education, environmental protection, biomedical research. We can't become sanguine about breast cancer research funding or NIH funding in general. Frankly, I'd like to see us shift some funds from defense into these important domestic priorities like biomedical research, education, etc. I still think Congress can do a better job of ordering our priorities.
MsgId: *breakthrough(30)
Date: Wed Apr 30 22:12:10 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.182.183
If we could end with one last thought on the mechanics of research funding--why did NIH get its increase now?
MsgId: *breakthrough(31)
Date: Wed Apr 30 22:14:26 PDT 1997
From: Rep_Lowey At: 143.231.65.205
While NIH may have done better than some other programs in the last couple of years, it's increase was still not large. It received about a 6% increase. I'd like to see an even larger increase for NIH. That's something I'll be fighting for in this conservative budget climate.
MsgId: *breakthrough(32)
Date: Wed Apr 30 22:17:44 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.182.183
Congresswoman Lowey, thank you for joining me on Breakthrough Medicine. I know our audience enjoyed hearing about the background forces that produce crucial research.
MsgId: *breakthrough(33)
Date: Wed Apr 30 22:19:32 PDT 1997
From: Rep_Lowey At: 143.231.65.205
Thank you very much for allowing us to speak in this forum this evening. It was a pleasure.
MsgId: *breakthrough(34)
Date: Wed Apr 30 22:29:11 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.182.183
Good night, and thank you for joining me on Breakthrough Medicine. Please join me next week when I speak to Dr. Gene Block, Director of the National Science Foundation Center for Biological Timing at the University of Virginia.
Home || Prime Time || Live Science || Machine Dreams || Project Open Book || SF-Fantasy-Horror
Continuum || Antimatter || Mind-Brain Lab || Interactive IQ || Gallery || OMNI ToonsQuestions, comments and suggestions can be mailed to the webmaster.
Copyright (C) 1997 by Omni Publications International, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.