« AnteriorContinuar »
There was some sentiment in the corrélet to frict. Itin V1
in OP 18 L supporting 72; svorirus ebraret.. The 3!1produc nét at folket useless by investigators suchod.
Are there questions? I would like to make some understandings
we need a broader base of understanding in viral oncology
he can't ever be sure. In science, one doesu't know when one
I want to get straight what Dr. Zinder recornends: (a) Would
As far as research goes, there is little difference between contract
inis masn'i a tieng cu vi wicie wisai siivuiu vi cundct. The specified target of a contract does not iit a basic endeavor.
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.
I wish to call on Dr. Rauscher to comment on changes that have been initiated.
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
There was deliberace policy to get the best people to serve on revicä
The policy in 1965 was to encourage investigators to enter the
i! We are a cozinable informational
Had I heard the reports by Dr. Zinder and Dr. Darnell given today,
I would like a copy of the remarks to add to the report. After
The material sent me by Dr. Zinder was not circulated because it
Charge to the sub-committee: Follow the implementation of the
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.
33-088 O - 74 - 12
Concerning grants ar.d contracts, I can't help but be
The report is intelligent; perhaps one-sided. The main thing
I wish to quote: "Consistency is something with which great
The sub-comittee will phase its activity over the next year.
Owen to Aros:
Give attention to the values in the ongoing VC!. It has been
Dr. Zinder has given us a refreshing approach to new direction
It is fortunate that the Zinder Committee gave as much constructive
The sub-committee is charged to bring the Board information as to what
Zinder said to get good peer review, separate outside program
Since we have different views of the function. of the sub-committee,
All of us in the physical sciences can see how much was lost by
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.