Sheryl Crow testifies for specific use of research dollars
May 23, 2008 by Karen Lynch
Filed under Women's Health
Here’s some news you need to ponder:
Sheryl Crow testified at a hearing Wednesday in support of a bill that would provide $40 million annually for five years for federal research into the environmental factors linked to breast cancer.
“We need to put more resources into figuring out what the environment has to do with breast cancer,” said Crow.
On the surface, I thought: Yeah! Right on, sister! Go Sheryl! Of course that’s something we really need!
But then I read on … seems there’s some controversy about this that we should try to understand before pledging our support for this bill without question:
“Prescribing a specific way of conducting federal research could have the unintended consequence of narrowing the field of inquiry and promoting an unwise use of precious resources,” said Deborah Winn, associate director of epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute.
This, my friends, is why I’m not in politics. I often see both sides of a debate and quite frankly, I don’t see myself as enough of an authority to make a definitive call on something like this. What if we do shoot ourselves in the foot, supporting one kind of research at the expense of another? Who are we to say what the best use of those dollars are?
Chime in here … what do you think of this bill?
(Source: Reuters and Houston Chronicle; Image: Newscom)
Interesting post. Very thought-provoking! Of course, scientific grants have limits placed on them all the time. We shouldn’t hold research on environmental factors to a higher standard. And environmental research may narrow the field in certain ways, but could open it up in many others since there is so much to learn about environmental factors and disease.
On the other hand, bills can be written in notoriously obscure ways. What if research finds a link between a toxin and a specific gene involved with breast cancer …will they be able to study both “sides” of the issue properly?
We need more funding overall, and we do need to look at the environment… but if this bill isn’t passed, what are the chances of actually getting a better one passed? That’s the political calculation, I guess.
And thank you for your more recent posts about Memorial Day, as well.
Debbie, thanks for adding to this conversation. I don’t know much about grants …but you’re right, there is so much to learn that any research would likely be beneficial. How do you decide where to start?
I thought you might want to know a little more about this bill. The unique thing about this research is that is will involve advocates and survivors in a partnership wih researchers. It is modeled after the current DOD breast cancer research program which has been very successful and is very well respected. Also, the program will encourage collaboration between different researchers and will encourage ” outside the box” new ideas. So it is a well-thought out, new way for NIH to operate. And many may not like change but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. And even thought the research will be targeting envioronmental causes of breast cancer, much of the research will pertain to many different cancers.
Laura, thanks for bringing these points to our attention. I like the idea of survivors and advocates in partnership with the researchers. That sounds quite interesting. I love the idea that researchers will be collaborating more … that, to me, shows a new kind of promise (and an important one).
KL