ag, ‘936 23:@@ CET) To: Dr Hareld Varmus “AGE 1 oof

WASHINGTON FAX2

An information and communication service

Life Science
September 10, 1996

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH WILL HCNOR CLINTON’S COMMITMENT TO
INCREASE SPINAL CGRD INJURY RESEARCH

President Clinton’s personal commitment to film star Christopher Reeve
last May to direct $10 million more into spinal cord injury research
Will be honored during the calendar year May 1996 te May 1997, assures
Harold Varmus, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Varmus said yesterday he expects an NIH-sponsored workshop planned for
September 30 and October 1 to create a certain excitement and attract
new researchers to the field of spinal cord injury who are currently
working in areas that are ancillary to spinal cord research. He also
believes that the participants of the workshop will be stimulated to
identify new areas for research in spinal cord injury.

Varmus told Washington Fax that part of the funds to be used in
completing the $10 million commitment will come from his Director's
Discretionary Fund. He said he has no problem using the fund for this
purpose because the science in the area is “extremely good and deserving
of support.”

In FY 95, NIH spent approximately $47 million for research on spinal
cord injury and regeneration. This includes more than $39 million
through the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
(NINDS). Asked whether that $47 million would increase to $57 million
during the May to May calendar year, Varmus responded that that would be
the case.

His response agrees with the statement in a recent NIH backgrounder,
"Curing Paralysis: A Total NIH Research Effort,” that NIH is developing
a plan to increase research in that area through new initiatives.

Varmus is quoted in the backgrounder as saying, "Research on spinal cord
injury is contributing to ways to treat other disorders, such as
Parkinson’s disease...and research on other disorders, such as stroke,
is contributing to our understanding of spinal cord injury. Our ability
to design new appreaches to many diseases depends on basic research that
illuminates the fundamental properties of molecules, cells and tissues,
such as the brain and spinal cord. Progress against challenging
disorders is the result of the U.S. Government's policy to support
research based on scientific excellence rather than on presumed
relevance to certain disorders.”

The $10 million presidential commitment to Reeve created unrest among
special interest groups and, to some extent, among Hill staff, because
there is no new money involved.

“NIH is always unhappy with us about earmarking funds for specific
disorders and particularly unhappy when we don’t provide additional
funding,” said a Hill staffer. “What’s the difference if the president
does it? It still means NIH has to take funds intended for one use and
redirect it to the unfunded mandate.”

fv
ag, '96 23:66 [ETI Tot Or Harold Varmus PAGE 2 of

Page 2 of 2 (LS - WASFAX 9/10/96) Reeve (Cont'd)

Congressional earmarking of funds fer research into specific diseases
has continually been resisted by NIH, and for the last several years it
has been opposed by the chairs of the House Appropriations Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies subcommittee--first
by the late Rep. William Natcher, D-KY, and now by Rep. John Porter, R-
IL.

The president of a disease-specific interest group says he is
“confused.”

“when we have met with NIH officials and even hinted that we were going
te ask for money for our disease, NIH officials got upset and talked
about how basic research on broad areas, not specific diseases, results
in cures. Now, I am not so sure that I won’t ask for specific money in
the future for our disease. I am a great admirer of Christopher Reeve,
he truly is an awesome human being, but folks who have the disease I
fight for have every right to expect money to be earmarked te help fight
it, because they are going to die,” he lamented.

2% former NIH institute fiscal officer says of the president’s commitment
that it is “unfair since it was made nearly halfway into the fiscal
year. The FY 96 fiscal year ends September 30. With the tight fiscal
constraints, at this late date it is almost impossible to find that kind
ef money uncommitted. So it really means you have to take funds from one
high priority research area and apply it to another, pittinq one high
priority area against the other.”

The flip side of this discussion comes from those who represent special
interest associations that believe Christopher Reeve has done more to
bring the need to fund biomedical research to the center of the nation’s
focus than has been done at any time in the past. They refer te the very
dramatic speech delivered by Reeve at the Democratic National
Convention. Reeve’s speech prompted President Clinton in his own speech
to call for more biomedical research.

“T want to balance the budget with real cuts in government and waste. I

want a plan that invests in education, as mine does, in technology, and,
yes, in research, as Christopher Reeve so powerfully reminded us we must
do,” said Clinton.

Among other reasons for supporting biomedical research Reeve pointed out
that the nation spends nearly $8 billion annuaily for the cost of care
and services for the estimated 200,000 severely disabled survivors of
spinal cord trauma, while the nation spend about $47 billion on
biomedical research.

The NIH workshop, to be held at the Pooks Hill Marriott Hotel in
Bethesda, Maryland, is being sponsored by NINDS, the National Institute
of Child health and Human Development, the National Institute of Mentai
Health and the National Eye Institute.

Compiled and Published by: WASHINGTON FAX: AN INFORMATION SERVICE
Publisher & Editor: Bradie Metheny Managing Editor: Shirley Haley
Marketing/Sales: R. Henry Norweb Ill
Phone: 508-999-6097 Fax: 508-994-9366