, MARCH 17, 1971-17 PALO ALTO TIMES, PALO ALTO, CALIF., WEDNESDA \Stanford geneticist urges research reN oF ccomeer’ wane whe " tional | Washington, ‘|which would remove the | tional Cancer Institute from the]: NIH and move it to an authori-}; ty that would report directly to \ ra rem oar “5 3 A uate CONCatrate on Cancer prevention is a more promising target for researchy than cancer cure, Stanford geneticist Joshua Lederberg argues in commenting on the federal approach to cancer research. Lederberg, a Nobel Laureate in genetics, has retracted his earlier support of a new federal agency for cancer research in jfavor of a single agency. “All health research should be knit together within a single agency, specifically an aug- mented and strengthened Na- Institute of Health,” Lederberg declared Tuesday. |. He expressed his views in aj! jletter to the subcommittee on health of the Senate’s Commit- tee on Labor and Public Wel-|: fare. The subcommittee is con- ducting public hearings in D.C., on a Dill the President, ‘RESTRAINTS Lederberg explained that he had publicly supported a sepa- rate cancer research agency at first because he thought a new organization might be a way to avoid traditional bureaucratic restraints. Recent developments, includ- ing President Nixon’s new public commitment to health research in general, havel jcaused him to change his mind. Na-|, we 1 But Lederberg is firm in his}, conviction ‘Cure Cancer” is a misleading slogan, In earlier writings, he ex- plained his feeling is based on the belief “cancer prevention is a far more promising approach than the cure of the disease once established.” NO GLAMOUR Lederberg admits prevention is not as glamorous as cure by surgery or radiation, comment- ing ruefully, ‘A citizen who may balk at another dollar’s outlay for preventive public health will spend a fortune to root out his own cancer after the fact.” . At present about one person in six dies of cancer, Lederberg said. The best available and costly treatments probably could not improve that figure below one in ten. “This would be a notable achievement,” he said, “but it would buy fewer lives per’ dollar spent than many other junmet opportunities. “For really important progress we must acquire and use new knowledge for the prevention of cancer.” FAV G are mney [ou Lo W Gree The greatest promise for. eradication of cancer, in Leder- berg’s view, comes from the great leaps in basic biological knowledge of the last decade, many in studies of DNA, the genetic material in viruses. These have given only a few answers closely connected with human cancer, but “we are now able to formulate sensible questions about the nature of the cancer cell and the origin of its deadly differences from nor- mal.” The strongest hopes for pre- ventive measures are based in the fact that there are changes in cancer incidence in different eras and in different occupa- tions and geographical areas. FACTORS “They speak of the impor- tance of specific environmental factors rather than letting us acquiesce ignorantly to cancer iG] as an inevitable lightning bolt,”? he said. s Lederberg believes many; forms of cancer will be found to- be related to known énviron-: mental hazards—chemicals to’ which people are exposed at work and home, and chemicals‘ used as food additives or drugs. ° “This area, more than any. other,” he commented, “needs only money to give prompt re-: turns in reducing environmental! cancers.” . Another area where he ex- — pects important advances in control of cancer to come from is in the field of immunology. He said immunologists now: believe that many incipient: cancers are normally eliminat-, ed in the healthy body. Howev- er, a weakening of the immune system may allow a cancer seed to escape this surveillance and grow.