The National Cancer Act of 1971

The National Cancer Act of 1971 [PUBLIC LAW 92-218, 92ND CONGRESS, S. 1828], Dec. 23, 1971 /

Most of the attention that is paid to the Lasker Syndicate is on their role in the National Cancer Act of 1971. As far as its ostensible goal of conquering cancer is concerned, it was a complete failure.

Richard A. Rettig's book, "Cancer Crusade: The Story of the National Cancer Act of 1971' (Princeton University Press, 1977) lays out the ACS-MSKCC-Lasker-Rockefeller-Bobst-Schmidt, etc., et al., connections between the members of the Yarborough Committee, pages 83-88, with note of Elmer Bobst's anti-smoking activism. According to Richard Kluger's "Ashes to Ashes," Richard Daynard's Tobacco Products Liability Project to incite malicious lawsuits against the tobacco industry was originally funded by a $30,000 annual grant from the Rockefeller Family Fund. The list also includes Mathilde Krim, later of AIDS activism fame.

The Laskerites' old ally, former NIH Director James Shannon, was among those who opposed the Act: "Acknowledging the old medical research lobbyists' 'invaluable role' in awakening public interest in medical research, and their 'positive contribution' in 'modulating the scientific judgment' about research directions, Shannon warned against letting the lobby have its way in their desire to isolate the cancer effort in a separate program he feared they would control. If that happened, he said, scientific emphasis 'would be entirely determined by uncritical zealots, experts in advertising, and rapacious 'empire builders.''" (Strickland, "Politics, Science, and Dread Disease.")

The passage of the 1971 National Cancer Act is a classic illustration of how the Lasker syndicate operates: Their crony in Congress heeds their call for an inquiry, and obligingly creates a committee stacked with Lasker stooges to "study" the issue: Of the 26 members of Sen. Yarborough's "National Panel of Consultants on the Conquest of Cancer," 10 were ACS officers and 4 were associated with MSKCC. And, although Mary Lasker was not on the panel, she was said to have supervised the writing of the report (Barbara J Culliton. Mrs. Lasker's War. Harper's 1976 June). Predictably, they call for a new program and/or more money. Their shills in the media trumpet their cause, and Congress and the President fall in line in the name of "the people." When it comes to "astroturf" democracy, which the anti-smokers are always accusing the tobacco companies are perpetrating, the Lasker Syndicate wrote the book.

The Panel of Consultants (Yarborough Committee), medical scientific members: Sidney Farber; R. Lee Clark; Joseph Burchenal; Dr. James Holland of Roswell Park Memorial Institute; Solomon Garb; D. Jonathan E. Rhoads of the University of Pennsylvania and president of the American Cancer Society; Dr. William B. Hutchinson of Seattle (a crony of Sen. Warren Magnuson, Sen. Lister Hill's successor on the Appropriations Committee); Mathilde Krim, whose husband Arthur was a major contributor to the Democratic Party; Dr. Joshua Lederberg of Stanford University; Dr. Paul B. Cornely, president of the American Public Health Association; Dr. Henry Kaplan of Stanford; Dr. Wendell Scott of Washington University in St. Louis, an activist in the American Cancer Society; and Dr. Harold P. Rusch of McArdle Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin.

The lay members of the Panel of Consultants: Mary Lasker's old friends Emerson Foote, Anna Rosenberg Hoffman, William McCormick Blair Jr. and Deeda; Lewis Wasserman, president of the Music Corporation of America and a big contributor to the Democratic Party; Houston philanthropist Jubel R. Parton, a crony of Sen. Yarborough; Emil Mazey, secretary-treasurer of the United Auto Workers; IW Abel, president of the United Steel Workers; Mary Wells Lawrence of the PR firm Wells, Rich and Greene; Michael J. O'Neill, managing editor of the New York Daily News. Laurance Rockefeller, chairman of the board of MSKCC and a board member of the American Cancer Society, selected G. Keith Funstan, of the New York Stock Exchange and a director of numerous corporations including Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. as well as of the American Cancer Society.

Cancer Crusade / National Academy Press

Senate Resolution 376, 91st Congress 2d Session, by Sen. Ralph Yarborough (R-TX). Source Material for Cancer Research Study by the National Panel of Consultants on the Conquest of Cancer Authorized by S. Res. 376 (Agreed to by Senate, April 27, 1970) Prepared for the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, September 1970. Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington: 1970.

List of Members of the National Panel on the Conquest of Cancer and Staff Members of the Special Staff to the Committee

Mr. Benno Schmidt, managing partner, J. H. Whitney & Co., 630 Fifth Ave., New York, N.Y., 10022; Chairman.
Dr. Sidney Farber, director of research, Children's Cancer Research Foundation, 35 Binney Street, Boston, Mass. 02115,
Dr. R. Lee Clark, president, M. D. Anderson Institute, 6723 Bertner Avenue, Houston, Tex. 77005; acting Cochairrman.
Mr. I. W. Abel, president, United Steelworkers of America, 1500 Commonwealth Building, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15222.
Mr. William McC. Blair, Jr., general director, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, 726 Jackson Place, NW.,      Washington, D.C. 20566.
Mr. Elmer Bobst, chairman of board, Warner Lambert Pharmaceutical Co., 7 East 60th Street, New York, N.Y. 10021.
Dr. Joseph Burchenal, vice president, Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, 410 East 68th Street New York, N.Y.
Dr. Paul B. Comely, president, American Public Health Association, 520 W Street NW., Room 2400, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Emerson Foote, 185 East 85th Street, New York, N.Y. 10028.
Mr. G. Keith Funston, chairman of board, Olin Corp., 120 Long Ridge Road, Stamford, Conn. 06904.
Dr. Solomon Garb, scientific director, American Medical Center at Denver, 6401 West Colfax Avenue, Spivak, Colo.
Mrs. Anna Rosenberg Hoffman, 444 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022.
Dr. James F. Holland, chief of medicine A, Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, 666 Elm Street Buffalo,
     N.Y. 14203.
Dr. William B. Hutchinson, president, Pacific Northwest Research Foundation, 1102 Columbia, Seattle, Wash. 98104.
Dr. Henry S. Kaplan, chairman, Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif. 94305.
Dr. Mathilde Krim, Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, 410 East 68th Street, New York, N.Y. 10021.
Mrs. Mary Wells Lawrence, Wells, Rich & Green Advertising Agency, 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022.
Dr. Joshua Lederberg, professor of genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif. 94305.
Mr. Emil Mazey, secretary-treasurer, United Automobile Workers, 8000 Jefferson Ave., Detroit, :Mich. 48214.
Mr. Mike O'Neill, managing editor, New York Daily News, 220 East 42d St. New York, N.Y. 10017.
Mr. Jubal R. Patten, member of board, Fund for the Republic, Room 1603, Bank of the Southwest Bldg., Houston, Tex.
Mr. Laurance S. Rockefeller, chairman, Rockefeller Brothers, Inc., 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10020
Dr. Jonathan E. Rhoads, chairman, department of surgery, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 3400 Spruce St.
     Philadelphia, Pa.
Dr. Harold P. Rusch, professor of cancer research, McArdle Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.
Dr. Wendell G. Scott, clinical professor of radiology, Washington University, 100 North Euclid Ave., St. Louis, Mo.
Mr. Lew Wasserman, president, Music Corp. of America, Inc., Universal Studios, Universal City, Calif.
     Mr. Robert F. Sweek, director of special staff.
     Mr. Carl M. Fixman, deputy director.
     Mr. John A. Grimes, editorial director.

National Panel on the Conquest of Cancer, pp 17-18 / UCSF

Excerpts From the Testimony of Dr. Carl G. Baker, Director, National Cancer Institute, Before the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare and Related Agencies, April 23, 1970, Representative Daniel J. Flood, Chairman.


The Congress took special recognition of the increasing pace of research on cancer viruses with the initiation of the special virus leukemia program in 1964. The previous decade had seen the revival of cancer virus research and, with several findings becoming available in late 1963 and early 1964, the state-of-the-art reached the stage where a special program appeared warranted. By that time it had been clearly demonstrated that several cancers in animals were caused by viruses and some could be prevented by vaccination. A number of preliminary findings in man indicated similarities to the animal situation. The way to produce certain key reagents had been developed and ways to scale up to sizable required quantities could be visualized. Needed animal systems were available and the means for developing others-- for example, monkeys--were foreseen. Crucial laboratory tests were well along--though many others later proved to be necessary.

Good progress has been made since the special virus leukemia program was initiated, and the name has been changed to the special virus cancer program to indicate results and opportunities enlarging beyond leukemia.

We have made continual evaluations of the program and continually modify the program to take this into account. More than 80 viruses are now known to produce cancers in many different animal species, including subhuman primates, man's closest relatives--about 20 viruses discovered in the past 3 years. With some types of virus, we have attained pilot plant scale production, a critical step for the early stages of vaccine development and safety testing. Production of animals, including monkeys, and animal and human tissue culture systems is now scaled up to meet program needs. We can now produce requisite quantities of key reagents, have management capability to handle necessary logistics, and have required laboratory tests to determine within populations whether particular viruses may be related to particular cancers. Preliminary findings indicate strong association between Burkitt's lymphoma patients and a herpes type virus known as the EB-type virus. Similar association exists for nasopharyngeal cancers--that is, cancers in the back part of the mouth and the back part of the nasal area, and also in the upper throat. Also this association exists with infectious mononucleosis. Other studies are underway. Now, as you know, finding something in association with a disease does not in itself mean that that something necessarily causes the disease. We must determine quantitative relations on the association and systematically collect additional information. If it all hangs together, circumstantial evidence mounts, and causation may look more and more likely; but the causative significance is demonstrated after the disease is reduced or eliminated upon removal, reduction, or blocking action of the causative agent. We have completed this sequence in several animal cancers, but we are in the midst of the process with human cancers and have not yet established the virus causation of any cancers in man.

The circumstantial evidence continues to point to viral causation of several kinds of cancers, however. One important negative finding was attained last year: there appears to be no relationship between human cancers and the 31 adenoviruses, several of which can cause disease in man; that is, diseases of the respiratory tract or GI tract. There appears to be no association between any of these 31 adenoviruses and cancers in man, though many of these adenoviruses are known to produce cancers in hamsters. The capability of the special program allowed us to pin down this critical answer in only 9 months' time, during which we actually examined 300 cancer patients in terms of their serum specimens. We ran laboratory tests against all 31 adenoviruses and found no correlation between any of the types of adenoviruses and the types of human cancers.

We have checked this out with more critical and sensitive techniques and the same findings hold; so this has led to a marked shift of priorities in this area of adenoviruses and cancer. We put it pretty much on the back burner now.

The stages of development varies with different kinds of tumors. In some, such as Burkitt's lymphoma, we appear to be well along in determining the relationship between the disease and the EB virus and may be close to starting vaccine development. In others, such as lung cancer, only very preliminary findings are available. From the knowledge gained in the special program, however, we can now determine critical relations more rapidly.


It is important to group different kinds of tumors together in relation to certain kinds of viruses; so I will discuss three groups of tumors.


The first group are the tumors associated with the herpes-type viruses. Several important tumors are associated with these herpes-type viruses. These are DNA viruses related to those causing fever blisters and shingles. Yet they are not the same viruses that cause those diseases. Tumors associated with these viruses each year causes in the United States about 30,000 deaths and 70,000 new cases. These are the Burkitt and other ]ymphomas, nasopharyngeal cancers, cancers of the penis and uterine cervix, chronic myeloid leukemia, and suggestively certain other tumors, and certainly in some animal species, including the economically important disease in chickens known as Marek's disease. We are requesting $7.2 million for work with these tumors.

The state of the art varies with the different kinds of tumors. We are probably furthest along with Burkitt's lymphoma and nasopharyngeal cancers in our attempts to pin down virus causation of human cancers. The EB herpes-type virus, now available in quantity from tissue culture, has permitted us to gain important information on patients with lymphoma or nasopharyngeal cancers; such patients have antibodies in their serum against EB virus. I might add that quantitatively patients with these lymphomas have very much higher levels of antibody and antibodies are found in 100 percent of the patients.

In corresponding nondiseased control groups of the same age we can find EB virus in some of the subjects or we can find the antibodies against the EB virus but the levels are much lower and the percentages run much lower than in the case of the patients where it is 100 percent. These findings, coupled with the extensive animal and tissue culture data, are strongly indicative that the EB virus is the causative agent in producing these tumors. We must conduct much more extensive fieldwork with human populations, however, to prove causation, ultimately by the actual demonstration of a reduction in incidence of these tumors by corrective measures developed from the research. The data are suggestive that vaccination will be successful in preventing these types of tumor. In the coming year we will gather the additional information in population groups exhibiting high incidence of Burkitt's lymphomas and nasopharyngeal cancers, those types where the association is strongest and we have the most data available. The highest incidence is found in populations in Africa and in Southeast Asia, and we are working with the International Agency for Research on Cancer to ensure the international cooperation necessary to move ahead. We need more data to be sure of the validity of the early findings, to assess important time and space relationships of what the EB virus is doing in these populations, and how its distribution relates to cancer induction. We expect, to improve further the yield and purity of EB virus aml to conduct critical work necessary in a preliminary way for vaccine development. We still have need for an improved animal model for safety testing and fundamental studies.

Here I might interpose that we just this year produced three new animal cancers caused by herpes-type viruses in three different species of animals. These are in primates, including chimpanzees, and in rab- bits and guinea pigs, so we have hopes that the monkeys here again will serve as a suitable animal model system not unlike the polio story for needed tests for safety and effectiveness.

All these efforts are expensive since they involve large numbers of animals, costly materials, complicated logistics, complex equipment, and highly skilled workers in various locations.

In the case of cervical and penile cancers and chronic myeloid leukemia, data available to date are not so extensive. Here we will employ the methods developed for the lymphomas and nasopharyngeal cancers to try to obtain the required information as rapidly as possible. Here also we will conduct additional field investigations and extensive laboratory studies; they will involve the same type of complex and expensive resources.


The second group of tumors and viruses I want to discuss are the tumors associated with the type C virus. This is a virus that was discovered in animals years ago, known to be strongly associated with causation in animal leukemias. We have established clearly that we can transmit the virus and produce the disease as early as 2 weeks in mice with this type of virus.

These other tumors are associated with the cancer-causing virus known as type C, an RNA virus so designated from electron microscopy when seen in human and animal tumors and known to produce certain animal cancers. Several different species are involved and transmission of the virus has been clearly demonstrated in mice, cats, and chickens. The tumors associated with this virus are the leukemias--particularly childhood leukemia--sarcomas of bone, muscle, cartilage, and connective tissue, and other tumors, including Wilms' tumors in kidneys in children. Mortality from the leukemias--other than chronic myeloid leukemia which seems to be more associated with the herpes-type virus--totals 13,500; new cases of leukemias will total 17,000. Deaths from sarcomas this year in the United States are expected to be around 3,000, and 4,000 new cases can be expected. We are requesting $7.5 million for work on these tumors.

Evidence is mounting that tumors associated with type C virus may be produced in a manner different from the production of tumors associated with the herpes-type virus which I just discussed a moment ago. Although we have successfully prevented leukemias by vaccination in animals, there is some question whether this procedure will be effective in man. Evidence suggests that the genetic information of the type C virus is transmitted from one generation to the next in a covert and incomplete form. Several recently discovered techniques can reveal its presence. Sometimes a full virus can be detected, infect normal cells, and can induce cancers. Radiation, which under some conditions produces cancers, and cancer-causing chemicals are effective means for bringing forth the expression of this genetic information of the virus. Its presence can also be detected by immunological means. Sometimes special tissue culture cell lines or a helper virus, that is, a second virus, is required to bring forth these viruses.

A top priority question then is whether these findings in animals are directly applicable in man. Are cancers produced by the expression of this type C virus genetic information in all cases, including induction of cancers by chemicals? Only part of the time and with only some kinds of cancers? Or is a different mechanism entirely involved? Answers are especially critical since the approach to control of these cancers may be dependent upon the manner in which these interactions take place. Considerable investment of funds must be made to develop materials, animals, laboratory studies, and complex field investigations to determine the extent of cancer causation, with primary emphasis on the ]eukemias and sarcomas. Because of the causative role of chemicals in association with viruses, complex field studies in populated areas will be conducted to monitor populations for cancer incidence, virus exposure, patterns of antibodies against viruses, and exposure to chemical agents. Again, these efforts are costly because of the complicated logistics, expensive reagents and equipment, and the participation of highly skilled investigators. These studies have importance far beyond the cancer field since the laboratory developments here open up new approaches to gaining understanding of the manner in which cells function, and, in the case of development of embryos and repair of damaged tissues, the manner in which cells differentiate into new tissues.

In other words, learning about how this virus becomes expressed, or "switched on," as some people say, is a very similar problem to understanding how the cell controls its work through DNA and the RNA controlling the protein synthesis. We do have a handle, though, to get hold of this process in this case because we can bring out these viruses by special techniques and procedures which will allow us to follow the genetic information in relation to whether the expression is turned on or turned off. Sometimes we get tumors formed the way it is turned off, but with other conditions we get other findings. For example, these kinds of tumors all produce special proteins which are called antigens which we detect by looking for antibodies against these antigens. This is another way to tell whether that virus is there and whether it is being expressed or not. This provides us, then, a tool for finding out whether hereditary or genetic information is "switched on" or "switched off," not unlike the kind of hereditary information we have in the cell's own contents in the chromosomes. But this is somewhat simpler because the genetic information instead of being in the cell's own chromosome is actually a piece of virus that is transmitted from cell to cell and under special conditions we can get a handle on that by converting it into the full-blown virus or converting it so we can see expressions in other ways. This has ramifications in many fields besides cancer research.


Available research leads indicate that cancers of breast, lung, and large bowel and neuroblastomas are associated with viruses. Type C is the kind we were just talking about. Type B is the different kind. We see both of these kinds of virus particles in breast cancer cases. We see virus particles recently reported in lung tumors. Here this is such recent information that we do not yet have a category desiganation in terms of the name of this type of virus particle. We also have common antigens--as I mentioned a moment ago, special proteins detectable by immunological means like those produced by the sarcomas I was talking about--with neuroblastomas and cancers of the large bowel. This suggests virus association, but by no means establishes it. Mortality from these cancers next year will be 135,000, and new cases will number 212,000. We believe that the research leads are not as fully developed in this area as in the other two groups of tumors; therefore, we are requesting $4 million to develop programs along the line successful in the other areas, despite the larger magnitude of this part of the cancer problem.


Several lines of research (in sarcomas, leukemias, lung cancer, and other cancers) indicate increased incidence of cancer causation when chemicals and viruses act simultaneously. Recent public interest in environmental chemicals adds urgency to the need for further research in this area. An example of this is the Secretary's Commission on Pesticides under the chairmanship of Dr. Mrak.

We are requesting $2 million for the viruses-chemicals studies, that is, study of the interaction between viruses and chemicals, in this budget. We would propose to use such money for bioassay and screening; data generation and improvement of the assay systems involved; mechanisms of action of these interactions: and pathogenesis (that is, the better delineation of the course of the cancer in its initiation and development). Related studies, for which $800,000 is requested, will be conducted in population groups in conjunction with the third national cancer survey and migrant and other population groups, particularly cancers of uterine cervix, penis, and large bowel.

Dr. Carl G. Baker testimony, pp 25-34 / UCSF

Report from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare recommending passage of the Conquest of Cancer Act, to accompany S. 1828 (introduced by Sens. Peter Dominick, R-CO, and Robert P. Griffin, R-MI). June 29, 1971. "I. Summary S. 1828 would amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a Conquest of Cancer Agency as an independent agency within the National Institutes of Health under a Director reporting to the President. The Agency's purpose would be to energetically conduct a national program for the conquest of cancer. The Agency would submit its budget estimates directly to the President and would obligate funds appropriated for its activities in the same manner as other independent establishments within the executive branch. The bill would make the National Cancer Institute part of the Conquest of Cancer Agency. It would also establish a National Cancer Advisory Board to advise the Agency in the development and execution of its program. The Board would assume the functions now performed by the National Advisory Cancer Council, which it would supersede. The Director of the Agency would take neecssarv action, together with the Director of the National Institutes of Health, to maintain existing channels for the free communication of scientific knowledge between the Agency and the other health institutes, and for the coordination (through mutual program and budget review) of their respective activities."

Report on S. 1828, June 29, 1971 / UCSF

"Few issues have so united the biomedical community as the proposal to remove the National Cancer Institute from NIH and establish a NASA-like agency charged with conquering cancer in the same way the moon was conquered. No major scientific body, apart from the American Cancer Society, supports the proposal, and numerous organizations, from the National Academy of Sciencesdownward have spoken out against it... Stimulus for setting up the panel came from the New York millionairess and philanthropist Mary Lasker, the surviving, fully active member of the remarkable quartet that orchestrated the growth of the NIH's budget from $2.5 million in 1945 to nearly $1.5 billion by the late 1960s." (Cancer Politics: NIH Backers Mount Late Defense in House. By Nicholas Wade. Science 1971 Oct 8;174(4005):127-131.)

Wade, Science 1971 / UCSF

The Lasker Syndicate got more power as well as more money. In the words of the NCI history, "The National Cancer Program legislated by this act was intended not only to provide more resources for and attention to the search for a cure for cancer, but also to protect the NCI from bureaucratic entanglements that might slow down the research process. [Translation: "scientific opposition"] The terms of this act kept the NCI within the National Institutes of Health but established a "bypass budget" [Translation: "slush fund'] that went directly to the President for approval and could not be controlled by either the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The director of the NCI became a presidential appointee. The Act also created the President's Cancer Panel, composed of two scientists and one management specialist who would provide progress reports to the President on the status of the NCI's research. The 1971 Act replaced the National Advisory Cancer Council with an eighteen-member National Cancer Advisory Board composed of scientists and laypersons [Translation: Lasker and her cronies] offering guidance and advice to the NCI on all major initiatives."

White House announcement of NCAB appointees, March 7, 1972 / UCSF

The National Cancer Plan, Objective 1, 1972

Approach 1 of Objective 1 was, "The Application of Present Knowledge to Prevent Cancer in Humans by Social Action... Administrative and Legislative Proposals. I. Limit tobacco production and use. While outright prohibition of the production and use of cigarettes is probably not practicable, the Federal government must take direct and primary responsibility for a rigorous control program with sustained surveillance of established standards. The following six actions could greatly reduce the incentives toward and danger of smoking. a. Reduce the economic incentives for growing tobacco. b. Extend the limitations on advertlsing, and promotion of tobacco products, especially cigarettes. Equal space requirements of all advertising, in parallel with equal-time requirements on radio and televisions, could be explored. Control of sales locations (e,g., vending machines), perhaps by licensing, to render cigarettes less available and prominent to susceptible persons should be considered. Increased taxing of tobacco products should also be considered. c. Prohibit smoking in public areas. The exposure of non-smokers to the side-stream smoke of user's cigarettes represents an unacceptable trespass on individual rights. d. Establish more stringent limits on tar and nicotine content of cigarettes. Standards for the effectiveness of filters, for low, nonaddictive levels of nicotine, as well as for maximal levels of "tar" components, are needed to protect present smokers. Continuous monitoring of the product, review and up-grading of the standards, and exclusion from the market of foreign products which fail to meet the standards, should be included in the legislation. Proposals considered currently by the Canadian Government should be examined. e. Seek positive financial incentives through tax benefits. Federal medical aids, and other means should be sought for non-smokers. These can be of greatest value if directed toward the younger, 10 to 18 year-old group. While "policing" of smoking habits is impossible, the health costs to the nation of continued cigarette use justify positive encouragement to stop smoking. Present Federally-supported encouragement to smoke, such as tax-free. low cost cigarettes available to the Armed Forces and State Department personnel abroad, should be halted. f. Establish, support, and promote smoking-withdrawal clinics which would be available at little or no cost to persons who wish to stop smoking (cf. American Cancer Society model programs)." They also advocated that "Insurance companies should be encouraged to offer lower rates to nonsmokers (and nonusers of alcohol); in the interest of public health such companies should be encouraged not to invest in the tobacco industry." Members of the Panel: Harold P. Rusch, M.D. - Chairman. Director, McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin; Paul Kotin, M.D. Dean of the Medical School, Temple University Medical School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [former CTR member]; Joseph L. Melnick, Ph.D. Professor and Chairman, Department of Virology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; James A. Miller, Ph. D, Professor of Oncology McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin; Norton Nelson, Ph.D. Director, Institute of Environmental Medicine, NYU Medical Center, New York, N.Y.; Ernest L. Wynder, M.D. President, American Health Foundation, New York, N.Y.; Helen H. Baldwin, M.S.-Rapporteur. McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin.

Objective 1, 1972 / UCSF

"An essential feature of the new cancer act is the direct tie it creates between the NCI and the White House. The law provides for a structural reorganization that makes the director of the NCI responsible to the President -- not to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) or to the head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as before. Both the Secretary of HEW and the NIH director have thus lost control of the NCI budget. Under the new provision, they may comment on the budget, but neither may change it by so much as a comma. It will go straight from Rauscher's desk to the President. Another direct line to the White House has been opened by the creation of the National Cancer Panel, a triumvirate of one layman and two scientists, to oversee the entire operation of the NCI, reporting any bureaucratic quagmires to presidential advisors Ken Cole and James Cavanaugh, and, if need be, to Nixon himself." (National Cancer Act: Deciding on People, Policies, and Plans, by Barbara J. Culliton. Science 1973 Apr 28;176:386-390.) Benno Schmidt, the layman chairman of the PCP, aided in the selection of R. Lee Clark of the University of Texas who was "a surgeon better known for his practice of administrative medicine;" and Robert A. Good, the new director of the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, an immunologist and pediatrician who was formerly at the University of Minnesota.

Culliton, Science 1973 / UCSF

Richard M. Nixon, during whose administration the National Cancer Act of 1971 was enacted, in 1964 had been on the Advisory Council of the shadowy New England Institute for Medical Research, one of whose staff joined the Council for Tobacco Research and became the first contact for the Microbiological Associates mouse inhalation study. Prescott S. Bush, Skull & Bones 1917, was a director of this Institute.

<= Back to The Lasker Syndicate

cast 07-06-07