Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

There was some sentiment in the corrélet to frict. Itin V1
to services, removi2 111 damental resrarcı orta o Urutny
On reflection the acvantage of a viral oli00106.7 progr...I \
scen, if it were chá corretitive basis. here is fit fan
for VCP surprri orlu, per contract. Der 6. on purit
nadc by a snail Us in-IIS 4550". it párynir's ra
found to be the first man carcar

in OP 18 L supporting 72; svorirus ebraret.. The 3!1produc nét at folket useless by investigators suchod.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

-3

Rhodes:

Are there questions? I would like to make some understandings
(of what has been presented): (a) Money, which might have been
saved, was expenced too soon or too fast because of lack of
understanding (oi the complexity oí the problem), (b) There
were opportunisies to spend tire money in tise grants program.
(c) There exists a iäck of undersianding to direct a targeted Progra.

or

Zinder:

a less

we need a broader base of understanding in viral oncology
directed way of spending to get basic input.

[blocks in formation]

Zinder:

he can't ever be sure. In science, one doesu't know when one
will get an answer. Some promising scientists are not being
funded today, Had they been, one doesn't know if anything would
have come out.

Schmidt:

I want to get straight what Dr. Zinder recornends: (a) Would
continue the VC?; (5) houldn't spend as much money as is spent
• today; (c) wouid bring in outsiders as advisors from Study Section
and ACS panel; (u) Contractors wouli supply support; (c) Sulk of
the research would be by grants with carve some contract research;
(f) In costracis 27.d grants, peer review by the same scientific
cadre that would overiouk tlie Prozraz as a whole.

As far as research goes, there is little difference between contract

[ocr errors]

Zinder:

and £rant.

inis masn'i a tieng cu vi wicie wisai siivuiu vi cundct. The specified target of a contract does not iit a basic endeavor.

Schmidt:

Those giving and receiving contracts say that they are not constrained. You say that at the current state of knowledge, this can't be specified.

Rhodes:

I wish to call on Dr. Rauscher to comment on changes that have been initiated.

Rauscher:

I wish to thank Dr. Zinder and the members of the Committee.

To put the situation into perspeceive, the VCP began in 1965 to have
a hard-hitting program and to encourage young people to enter
cancer research. Congress gave a highly visible amount of money to
encourage bright people to code in. Concracks were selected as the
funding mechanism because, at the time, grants had money, and contracts
speeded up the funding process to 3 to 3 1/2 months whereas grant
support required 6 or more months.

There was deliberace policy to get the best people to serve on revicä
Committees. isë 12. the ziels sas become popular and coney large,
steps must be taken to separate management iron revieä. ne are 90.5
more into the program grant cechanism. There are best effort conc:20:5
with academic institutions. These could be converted to prozra. Gra:5
with information made available to Program managers.

--4

The policy in 1965 was to encourage investigators to enter the
ficld. If basic or fundamental research was required to get
from point i to point B, this would be done by a contract. It
was thouzzi to be unwise to use grants because these were
investigat5:-:::::::e:.

i! We are a cozinable informational
void, the program grant mechanism could be used. Also, funds for
project grants are being increased. I will close by saying
that things discussed yesterday at the Board meeting and Dr. Zinder's
idea of charging the review bechanism in general, the separation of
management from review will go a long way in satisfying Dr.
Zinder's concerns. Present operations are inherited from the
original deliberate organization at the beginning of the VCP.

Shubik:

Had I heard the reports by Dr. Zinder and Dr. Darnell given today,
I would hot have been as irritated as I was when I read the report.
Today's coments are to the point and I would like to see them
incorporated in the report.' Today's comments are somewhat at
variance with the substance of the report.

Rhodes:

I would like a copy of the remarks to add to the report. After
talking to Dr. Fauscher and others, I wish to take two steps:
(1) To receive the report with thanks. (2) Appoint a sub-
committee of the Board to iollow its implementation and report to
the Board to follow its implementation and report to the Board
how rapidly this is being accomplished. Dr. Amos is designated
as Chairman with Drs, Seitz, London, and Skipper as members. I
..
!!!!!23:10.0 12 20:30 21:0proposi.
be sure this report doesn': fall bet en the cracks.

[ocr errors]

The material sent me by Dr. Zinder was not circulated because it
is too personal. This will be given to the four people on the sub-
committee. It bears out the stand of the Zincier Committee. I
personally had the impression that the criticises were by people
I respect.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

Charge to the sub-committee: Follow the implementation of the
recommendations in the report by exchanges with Dr. Kauscher and
his designates as to how NCI is taking advantage of the
recommendations. I ask the sub-committee to report to the Board
at every or every other meeting on this implementation, and if it
can't be implemented, what considerations apply.

.J. Watson:

I wish to make some comments. I don't think the program is getting enough money. It would be a tragedy if the amount of money were decreased. Maybe (NCI) had been overly optimistic.

But this program represents the best matnod ior getting at the etiology of cancer.

In the l'irology szudy Section, the amount of coney was too szail.
The VCP could think bigger with more money for a more limited approach.
This created bad feelings by the failure of the VCP to recognize the
breadth of the field and putting too auch into the RNA viruses.

33-088 O - 74 - 12

-5

[ocr errors]

Concerning grants ar.d contracts, I can't help but be
disallusioned rezardin, the results of Study Sections. In
VCP, outsicer's input had not been recognized. I believe more money
sliould be equested and used fasl. There is no lona term hatzad
that would last five minutes, People just haven't gotten together.

[ocr errors]

The report is intelligent; perhaps one-sided. The main thing
is that box viruses cause cancer is a complex problem. Virolosy
Study Sections think small. I think a lot more money should be
gotten into it, and the power should be diffused to get away from
individual decisions.

Rhodes:

I wish to quote: "Consistency is something with which great
minds have nothing to to".

[ocr errors]

Amos:

The sub-comittee will phase its activity over the next year.
Accomplish-ent cannot be done at one blon. Progress reports will
be brought to the Board in an organized manner over time.

Owen to Aros:

[ocr errors]

Give attention to the values in the ongoing VC!. It has been
criticized, but it includes very able cen with dedication to
Program. It would be unfortunate if action were taken to disrupt
this. I think cany of us are concerned over stresses with which
intramural workers have had to cope. I agree with Dr. Zinder on
the support of a strong intramural program, A great many of us
would rave regret were severe damage done to a progran wnich nas
been a source of pride.

Amos:

Dr. Zinder has given us a refreshing approach to new direction
without saying that what has been done is bad.

[ocr errors]

Schmidt:

It is fortunate that the Zinder Committee gave as much constructive
input as it did.

Amos:

The sub-committee is charged to bring the Board information as to what
is being done.

[ocr errors]

Schmidt:

Zinder said to get good peer review, separate outside program
management from internal management. The Board has said it shares
that view. Dr. Rauscher is to implement this. The Amos Comnittre
is to consult with Dr. Rauscher to see how implementation is done
or that it is deficient.

Amos:

Since we have different views of the function. of the sub-committee,
I hope we reach the sac.e objective.

Seitz:

All of us in the physical sciences can see how much was lost by
too much concentration in a specific direction. We may get to a
point where basic research people will say we can set our sights.

Senator KENNEDY. We will next hear from a panel of witnesses, consisting of the distinguished members of the President's Cancer Panel, Mr. Benno Schmidt, chairman of the panel and chairman of the board of Memorial Hospital, vice chairman of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York City, accompanied by Dr. Ray D. Owens, Department of Biology, California Institute of Technology. Dr. Owens is technical advisor to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; and Dr. R. Lee Clark, University of Texas System Cancer Center, Texas Medical Center, who is director at large of the board of directors of the American Cancer Society, and president of the Scientific Committee.

STATEMENT OF BENNO SCHMIDT, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT'S CAN

CER PANEL; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. RAY D. OWENS, DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PASADENA, CALIF., AND DR. R. LEE CLARK, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM CANCER CENTER, TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER Mr. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are pleased to be here.

Senator KENNEDY. Gentlemen, we have benefited many times from your testimony and we are anxious to take advantage of your scientific and technical know-how.

Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am going to keep my opening remarks very brief so that we can get to the question of the members of your committee.

I would like to say it is a pleasure for me and my colleagues on the President's Cancer Panel, Dr. Lee Clark and Dr. Ray Owen, to appear before your committee on the second anniversary of the passage of the National Cancer Act. The past 2 years have been very eventful years in the evolution of the cancer program, and there is no question that great progress has been made in that period.

As recently as 1970, cancer research was relatively on the back burner so far as our national priorities were concerned. In 1970, the Federal Government spent $180 million on its cancer research program. In 1971, while the Cancer Act was under discussion in the Congress, these expenditures were increased to $232 million.

In 1972, the first year after the passage of the Act, the National Cancer Institute was provided $378 million. In 1973, the amount was $432 million, and in the current fiscal year of 1974, expenditures will be $589 million. This latter figure includes $59 million which has been released from funds previously impounded.

During this period of very rapid growth in the Federal cancer program, it is my belief that a good balance has been maintained between grant-supported activities and contract-supported activities, between research aimed primarily at extending our fundamental knowledge of cancer and that aimed primarily at improving the technology of clinical care, and between extramural activities conducted in research institutions throughout the country and intramural activities conducted by the NCI itself.

I think these balances are reflected in the 1974 figures.

« AnteriorContinuar »