STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305 © (415) 321-1200

 

 

July 20, 1971

STANFORD University SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Department of Genetics

Honorable Paul G. Rogers
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C, 20515

Dear Mr. Rogers,

The Conquest of Cancer Act, $.1828, will I believe shortly be
before your subcommittee. I have, needless to say, been deeply gratified
by the resurgent interest of the Congress in mobilizing scientific
resources for the conquest of cancer, While I would perhaps had given
heavier weight to prevention than to the cure of this disease as a
feasible and important objective, the purposes of this new legislation
are beyond reproach,

Enclosed is some correspondence that I have had with the
Senate Subcommittee prior to the enactment of S,1828, I am not an
enthusiastic supporter to the particular administrative structure
formulated in the Senate bill but it is far better than it might
have been. Above all, nothing is established that would be too
costly to reverse if further experience so dictatefit. I would be
tempted to let the matter rest at this compromise with the feeling
that more wrangling would probably accomplish more harm than good.

There is just one item in S.1828 that I would call to your
particular attention, Section 407G (1) states that "The board shall
insure that the Director, by regulations, maintains scientific peer
review of research grants and programs".

This is a crucial change from the orientation of the original
proposals for a new Cancer Authority, and as you may note from the
correspondence it represented my point of divergence from that of
the legislation that was drawn up in response to the panel report.

My only concern is that no explicit machinery or administrative
authority accompanies this responsibility on the part of the board,
One might argue that the board would be capable of redressing any
violations of this principle by its implied authority to ventilate
any criticism that it may have in the administration of the act.
However, if the board is sustained in a traditional relationship
with the director the advice of the board will be transmitted to
the director, be subject to his sole administrative discretion,
and this conceivably may lead to some very difficult impasses.,

over

LT. J. P. KENNEDY, JR. LABORATORIES FOR MOLECULAR MEDICINE, DEDICATED TO RESEARCH IN MENTAL RETARDATION

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY HEREDITY NEUROBIOLOGY DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE
Honorable Paul G, Rogers -2- 7/20/71

Perhaps paragraph (h) confers a certain independence on the board
with respect to reporting its findings but at a minimum it would
be most important to have this clearly understood and implied in
the legislation itself, I would in fact again urge that the board
have a more far reaching authority, namely to prescribe the
regulations by which the director shall maintain scientific peer
review,

(1) may have this intent but I am not sure that it will be
read unambiguously as conveying the requisite authority.

Thes role for the board would be a logical extention, an
improvement, of the existing responsibility that inheres in most
of the national advisory health councils to approve individual
grants, I would agree that this is a cumbersome responsibility
and I would indeed urge that the board have the role of prescribing
the framework of approval rather than being required to undertake
the rather symbolic role of approving each individual grant,

Given this reinterpretation, the Senate bill is unlikely to
do very much mischief and is capable of accomplishing very much
good, I hope that you will then be able to give it your own
approval as a constructive compsomise,

Sincerely yours,

Joshua Lederberg
Professor of Genetics

JL/rr