By Cristine Russell The author, who has o biology degree sfrom Mills College, ws currently a fel- low at tha Washington Journalism Cen- ter. ONGRESS IS NOT noted for re jJecting:programs with deep mass appeal for quicter approaches that have qgreater chance of success. Quiet succtsses do not win elections. But in the case of cancer research, the law- makers, with President Nixon follow: ing behind, sppear headed for the quieter attack. This approach, recently adopted by the House, provides con- siderably increased funding for cancer research, but it does not suggest that swift cures-for cancer can be found in a crash progam. Tt has taken a considerable battle for thia view to come to the fore—includ ing fightung the powerful health lobby o€ Mary Lasker. persuading the Presi dent to change his mind for s second ume, batling grass-roots emotions surred by syndicated columnist: Ann Landers. and opposing one cancer stncken lobbyist who made last-ditch telephone appeals from his huspital bed. The first major thrust for new can cer Jegisiauon came early jast Decen- ber, in a report Ww the Senate by a group called the Pane! of Consultants an the Conquest of Cancer Calling for a national crusade tu conquer cancer. the panel suggested a bold approach involving creation of an independent agency whose sale missin would be tu coordinate and expand cancer fe search The stimulus behind this group Mary Lasker. philanthropist widow of advertising executive Vibert Lasker who deed of cancer in 19527, head o. the foundation bearing the Laskee name, and a major influence un much of the nation’s heallh legisiatiun Mrs Lasker, who has stressed the areas of mental health and cancer. is credited wih a considerable role in persuading Congress to increase approprinuions for the National Instituies of Health (NIH) from $2.5 milion in 1045 Lo more than $1.8 billion last fiscal year. rs. Lasker's Impatience AC A MEMBER of the Advisory Council for NIH’s National Can cer Institute, Mrs. LaSker and her in- formal health lobby became increasing Jy frustrated with both the bureaucrat fe inertia which slowed down the re: ‘earch pace and the stagnant cancer budget. While her doctor allies indi cated that research leads were increas ingly promising, the cancer budget only moved from $175 milion i 1867 to $180 raillion In 1970, not even keep ing pace with inflation The Panel of Consultants’ report re- flected Mra. Lasker's impatience with the existing structure The cochairmen —Dr Sidney Farber. director of the Boston Childrens Cancer Research Foundation, and Benno Schmidt, a New York investment banker—both have close ties with her. Many of the 26 panel members have also been lead- ers of the American Cancer Society. of which she is an honorary chairman. Legislation to implement the panel's recommendations was introduced by then-Sen Ralph Yarborough of Texas, another Lasker ally who was chairman of the Labor and Public Welfare sub- committee on health. Yarborough also had introduced the Senate resolution creating the panel in the first ptace, and Mra. Lasker contributed $5,000 to his losing bid for reelection in 1970 Last January, Sen, Edward M. Ken- nedy (D-Mass.) stepped into Yarbor- ough's subcommittee chairmanship, and he soon reintroduced the bill to cereale an independent cancer agency. Kennedy, Lasker, the American Can cer Suctety and such cancer specialiats as Dr Farber were convinced that a concentrated agency effort such as NASA's moon-shot program was needed to push cancer research inte signifeant breakthroughs “The NIT cathedral doesn't want thts lype of tar geted. practical research.” complained Meke Gorman, a fungtime promoter of the Lasker health tobby MH othe Laskerites charce. conven (ales lat too much on supporting baste research that as, the study of finda mental ite pracesses —and how tre lates to ubseases Like maty political leaders, the | Laskerites dont sey enourt practical results- the cure ot human beings—-cesulting from the tac dollars invested in research The Nixon Switch HE POLITICAL POTENCY of can research soon made it a bipa: usaa ie. Elmer Bobst, an 83-year-old vharmaceutical millionaire who alsi served on the Panel of Consullants, prodded his close friend Richard Nixot inte joimng the cancer baltle Some times called the President's “honorary father.” Bobst is a life member of the Amertean Cancer Soviely as well asa $63,000 contrebutor to Che HGH Republe can campaige tn bis January State of the Union address, President Nixon proposed an addwvonal $160 million for cancer re xvarch thes fiscal year But he intially resisted Kennedy's tache of moving cancer research out of the NTH. Ina speech last February, his science ad viser, Edward © David Jr. said cit is the President's belief that having honed and sharpened our biomedical re search mechanism, the National Inst!- tutes of Health, we should now use it and call upon tt Indeed, we do not believe in an AEC of NASA for cancer Support for Kennedy's propesal, how ever continued tu snowball, particu larly after Ann Landers, # friend a! Mary Lasker's, used her nationally syn. dicated culumn last April lo endorse it “Who smong us,” she wrole, “has nut lost # loved one lo cancer? Is there a Single person in my reading sudience so incredibly Jucky that his jife has no” been changed In some way by this dread disease? Mure Americans dicj of cancer in 1969 than were killed in the four years of World War II. Of the 200-milllon Americans ative today, 60 million will develop cancer. Approx- imately 34 million will die of il. Cancer ctaims the lives of more children under 15 years of age than any other ittness.” e Polities of Cancer Her ‘appeal prompted hundreds of thousands of letters to Senate offices. California Sen. Ajan Cranaton’s office alone received’ mote than 50,000 mes. sages. In a May 11 announcement, Presi- dent Nixon reversed his position on the Kennedy bill, just as lt was about to be reported out of committee. Ann Landers claimed credit for changin: Mr. Nixon's mind: “When he figured he couldn't beat us, he joined us“ Bobst, during visits (s the While House, In hiso said to have influenced the President. Mr. Nixon said he would “ask Con gress to give the cancercure program independent budgetary status and make its director directly responsible to the President.” But the Lasker forces and their Sen: ate friends did wot {vel that an adnin istration bil! introduced the day of the President's announcement, moved tat enough toward independent status Werks of negotiations ensued between Kennedy subcommittee aides and the administration. Changes they made in the bill were cleared, via tetephone to New York, with Panel of Consultants’ cochairman Benno Schaildt. Finally there emerged & compromise bill, which proposed (uo keep the cancer agency nominally within NIH but es sentially with independent stalus “We breathed life iniy the Prest dent's bill, using scissors and seateh tape," remarks subcommittee stall counsel Leroy Goldman. Only Sen. Gaylord Nelson 1 Wiss a member of the Kennedy subromnut tee, dismissed the compromise micas ure as a “face sas uig political compre ine, WHOL serentifie meri’ When te bil reached the Senate flour, lie was the lin the Tt vate by whieh sect Uniting the Opposition TILE THE SENATE vate repre sented an overwhelming virlory for the Lasker-Kennedy forces, Ht alsa produced an effect they had nol antics pated it galvanized most major urgan lzauons of scientists inle upposing the independent agency concept and favor ing instead 8 contiqued effort willin NUL ‘This unusual mobilization was spear headed by three Washington hased ser entiste-De John A.D. Couper, prest deat of the Assocation of Ameri Medical Colleges, Dr. Philip Handler, president of the National Arademy of Sesences, and Dr John Hogness, presi dent of the Academy's newly created tustitute of Medicome The suentifie oppasition hit fertile ad when the legistation reached House IL was assigned to the Pub he Health and #avirgnment Subcon mittee, whose chairman, Rep Paul Itogers (D-Fias, had tong disagreed wilh the Kennedy atea of separaling, cancer reseaceh frany NOL While Hog: ors was a newcomer to The health field, he had beaten the admumstration ence hefore in the area My parading scien tafe subcommittee he ines, he had forced the Stxan admins Trahen Gr keep control of narcotics leg. Islation an Hs Department of Health, Faucation and Weblo e unstead of gn me Hote the poles nanded tastier De partment wilnesses a Raxers felower the same fact alter te introduced a Feancer-pttack” Mil in September Rejecting the Sea ate Infh as ca cosmetic sppreach boat comples problem.” he held four weeks of hoarmgs in which SY witnesses built their cuse for attacking cancer through the NEP systene Scientint after seieutist testified Chat breakthroughs oa the cancer front Seoul depend upon ong tere advat cos in Aikamental scence virulogy. SEOs, pretios and cell bopboys Stace basi eet ot thes type os Trencled a 1 wloistitales at NTL alsa Une cancer area could con ceivably come from any uf them. THE WASHINGTON POST Dr. David Baltimore, a Massacha setts Institute of Technology scientist, for example, made a discovery 1% months ago aboul virus enzymes which has important implications for cane causation. His work was funded by the National InaUtute of Allergy and In fec tious Diseases. Baltimore feels Unal “cancers are still a mystery Yo Maintain progress, we need a strony troadly bs, search effort, nol a channeled, directed attack Onty when the problem is better understood will a crish progiam be yustified € Since ne one knows exactly why a cell becomes maliguant, “an albout ef dort at this time would be tke teving to land @ ina oon the moon wiboutl laiewsng Newton's laws of motion” ve marked Dr Sol Splegetman, a cancer specialist at Columbia University Moreover, cancer is nol one but hundreds of diseases, and “ul is bkely that progress will be made in differen: forms of cancer at different rates Must scientists do nut believe that wo are likely to have anything like a pear cillin for all forms of cancer.” stated Dr, Cart Baker, current director of the National Cancer Institute Many sctcntisis alsu feared that a separite agency would be a giaat step teward dismantling NIH because other inatitutes would press for independ ence Indeed, the American tleart As seution has atready served notice (at If catteer is Put into a separate agency Howill seek stinilar status for heart chs t which kill lwite ay inany Amect cans annually as cancer “Qiling” the Machinery SED ON THE testimony, Koy ers and his subcommittee found pu major scientific case for separatism ‘The must judicious balance between findemental and applied research secued to be offered by intensifying the canver effort through the NU ma chinery. “Let us gil it and refuel it and abift milo high gear lo win the race against cancer,” said Dr. Phillip Lee. former assistant secretary of health and scieutific affairs at HEW The Rogers bill provides the “vil” by streamlining the jenglhy administra live process that bothered the Panel of Consultants. ‘Ihe cancer institute is ac- corded special status, atlawing the director to speed up the procedure for approving research grants snd lu send his budyet directly to the President, of- fieials at NIH and its parent depart ment IHEW, could make comments bul pot changes. Because of the Presi dent's desire to uversee the program, a threeman watchdog pane) would mon tor the cancer iostitule and report to hin. Sunday. * Mtr CS ‘the House bul authorizes $L5 tyllion over the next three years (the Senate bill eft funding opened), adds 15 marge clunical research centers and reinstates the cancer control programs bal were financially phased out « year sito (these include Pap tsts for cervical candér, hw y detechon, and personnel Without making false prom Leas ning? ises (hat a speecty cure ds un the offing, the Rogers UL represents a sinoifi cantly enhanced commitment bo ean cer cesearch The Ragers subcommitice, including the three Republican members, stood firmly bebind their pusitiun, despite last amamute lobbying lor the Senate ap proach, A Citzeos Committee tor the Canguest uf Cancer, cochaired by Di Farber, and backers of the American Cancer Sociely sponsured a $58,000 ad verlising campaign in three major city Newspapers and 21 home papers in subcummittee meanders’ districts. In addition, the Cancer Society's Wasliaa: tow dobbylst, Col Luke C Quinn dr, himsel€ stricken with cancer, made phone calls from his hospital bed to try and get subcommiltee members to re- verse their stand But the Regers bill moved casily from committee to House, where it passed twa weeks 3505 A House Senate conference an the two billy is scheduled tor Us week bat the final collision of the weusures ix more likely to produce a dull thud than a hard utling clash) Through bis heatth adviser, O10 James Cavanaugh, whe helped enginver both the Senate compromise and the final House bul, and through Rep William: Sproiger WH), ranking Republean on the Commerce Committee, which cleared the Rogers DILL, Peesisent Nocon is now giving lacil approval to the House var sion. American Cancer Soviety sources privately indicate Unal they, too, find the Rogers Dill acceptable, though they formally favor the Senate version. AL this should help the Hogers position prevail iy conference Whatever the final language of the measure, the congressional battle 1b nelf has been uf considerable benefit M should make clear tu the pubhe, on the one hand, thatat canpoet expect i stant cures to cancer- and ihat Con gress, anyway, cannot legislate the rem eds. On the other hand, st should serve as ample reminder Lo scientists that the public has a deep stake in thelr research, and that it will not toler ate for tog fang the ivory tower atth tudes that sometimes do creep into their work, The scientists will have to vive a convincing performance that they are, indeed, progressing toward practical payotls,