Tag Archives: breast cancer

Breast Cancer Doesn’t Know It’s October

Excerpt of an op-ed by Susan G. Komen President and CEO Judith A. Salerno published in The Huffington Post.

SalernoAs I conducted numerous media interviews about the continued need for research, education, treatment support, and advocacy, it occurred to me that it would be great if we were talking about breast cancer like this every day of the year.

It’s really quite simple. Breast cancer doesn’t know (and doesn’t care) that it’s October, because breast cancer is diagnosed and kills women and men every day of every month of every year. Every 19 seconds, somewhere in the world, a person has a new diagnosis of breast cancer. In the U.S., a woman is diagnosed every two minutes, and one dies every 13 minutes from this terrible disease.

Those are shocking numbers, and behind every one of those numbers is a compelling story. A mother who by sheer will lived long enough to watch a child graduate from high school. A daughter taken too soon from parents who would have given anything to switch places with her. A father carrying a gene mutation that passed breast cancer on to his daughters. A woman without money, without insurance, terrified to seek help until the tumor was breaking through her skin.

I think of these stories in October, and November, and June and April, as does everyone in the breast cancer movement. As much joy as we take in celebrating the women who are cancer-free; as much pride as we take in funding leading research; as much effort as we put into helping the most vulnerable people in our communities, we know that we will be continuing this work until we can shut off the lights and go home, because we’ve cured and prevented this disease.

Read the full op-ed here.

Advertisements

A Weekly Advocacy Message from Mary Woolley: Can we put a dent in the costly toll of suicide?

Dear Research Advocate: 
 
The loss of American Icon Robin Williams has riveted national attention on suicide, one of the 10 most common causes of death in the United States. Today, we are releasing our updated fact sheet on suicide that you can use when meeting with lawmakers and educating others about the impact research can have. Efforts to prevent suicide rightly draw on research findings. But progress has been painfully slow, stymied by serious gaps – partly due to severely limited funding – in the basic research base that precedes private sector development, and stymied by the equivalent of handcuffs placed on social science research.

The notion promulgated by some in the Congress that social sciences research doesn’t add enough value to merit federal funding is not just unfounded, it’s holding us back. Social sciences research saves lives. Case in point: behavioral research guided the development of a suicide intervention that was pilot tested in schools in Georgia and Connecticut and resulted in a 40% reduction in attempted suicides. It has since been implemented in schools across the country. This is just one example of social sciences research at work.

Research moves faster when patient advocates engage. This is the history of the nation’s commitment to defeating polio, to ramping up HIV/AIDS research, to prioritizing breast cancer research and women’s health research overall. Writing in the New Yorker last month, Seth Mnookin described the impact that “dedicated … well-informed families” can have in pushing progress. In his responsive letter to the editor, Peter L. Saltonstall, CEO of the National Organization for Rare Disorders, focused on the use of social media by patient groups to establish global registries, taking full advantage of abilities we didn’t have just a few years ago, and in so doing, saving lives. But there is another message here. The research community must work more closely with patient advocates in order to drive medical innovation. As one of the researchers in the Mnookin article said, “Gone are the days when we could just say, ‘We’re a cloistered community of researchers, and we alone know how to do this.’” Continue reading →

Medical Research: It’s about you and me

collage fact sheetResearch!America’s newest fact sheet series highlights the personal stories of medical research and the importance of increasing the NIH budget in FY15. We hope you will share these fact sheets with your representatives or congressional candidates, or take it with you on Hill or in-district visits. No one who reads these stories can doubt the significance of medical progress. A stronger investment in research is needed now more than ever!

Here are their stories:

What new discoveries are we delaying and missing when we slow the pace of medical and health research?

We’ve made progress. But the funding to sustain it is eroding.

A Weekly Advocacy Message from Mary Woolley: American values at stake

Dear Research Advocate:

My colleagues at Research!America have shared the role as author of our weekly letter during my recent sabbatical. My thanks to them for providing timely and actionable information to our wide network. As I am “re-entering” the Washington space, I have been struck by (1) the significantly worse condition of the roads — potholes everywhere, and now even sinkholes in DC! I’ve been in several global capitals this spring, including in less-developed countries, and DC doesn’t look good in comparison. Via recent domestic travels, I can attest to the poor condition of our roads nationwide, taking a toll on vehicles and our economy, while eroding public confidence in government. Public goods — like infrastructure, education and science — that we have long nurtured through steady investment cannot continue to be resource-starved without dire consequences. No wonder the American public is angry at Washington! (2) I have come back just in time to witness the appropriations process grind to a halt. The clock is ticking down toward August recess, and appropriators have a new excuse for failure to take action, i.e., the migrant children emergency. There will always be national emergencies. By definition they are unpredictable, and some are more complex than others; it nonetheless cannot be acceptable for Congress to grind to a halt when one occurs. Continue reading →

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month

pinkribbonIt’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month! Although many great strides in new treatments and therapies for breast cancer have been made, patients and their families are still waiting desperately for a cure. According to the American Cancer Society, breast cancer is the most common cancer among American women, except for skin cancers. About 1 in 8 women in the U.S. will develop invasive breast cancer during their lifetime.

This month, organizations will raise awareness and funding for breast cancer, and it’s important that we continue advocating to policy makers, media and the public about the importance of funding research at the level of scientific opportunity. Throughout October, please visit Research!America members American Cancer Society and American Association for Cancer Research to learn more about preventative care, new research and ways you can help make a difference in the fight against cancer.

Now is the time to tell Congress that we need #curesnotcuts; we need access to quality breast cancer screenings, diagnostic services and treatment, and care for all women. Speak up for breast cancer research!

How the Sequester Hurts Cancer Patients

By John Seffrin and Michael Caligiuri

An excerpt of an op-ed by John R. Seffrin, PhD, CEO of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network and Research!America Board member, and Michael A. Caligiuri, MD, director of the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center and CEO of the James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute published in U.S News & World Report.

 

Michael A. Caligiuri, MD

Michael A. Caligiuri, MD

John R. Seffrin, PhD

John R. Seffrin, PhD

Clinical trials are often a patient’s only viable treatment option for surviving cancer – a disease that kills 1,500 people every day in this country. But haphazard federal budget cuts, a consequence of the so-called “sequester” that was initiated in March, threaten to stall or eliminate critical clinical trials nationwide and further threaten important basic laboratory research. For the one in two men and one in three women in America who will hear those three most dreaded words, “You have cancer,” in their lifetime, research provides more than the promise of new treatments and therapies; it offers hope for beating a disease that was once considered a virtual death sentence.

The Ohio State University’s Comprehensive Cancer Center-James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute conducts groundbreaking clinical trials for cancer research. Due to mandated federal budget cuts earlier this year, the National Cancer Institute was already forced to reduce by half the number of participants in clinical trials at OSU. Under sequestration, these trials will likely be completely eliminated this year, affecting patients undergoing treatment for leukemia, lymphoma, breast cancer and a variety of other forms of cancer. Continue reading →

Supreme Court hears arguments on case with far-reaching implications for genetic research

The much-contested question of whether or not a gene can be patented is under judicial scrutiny once again. The U.S. Supreme Court listened to oral arguments today regarding Myriad Genetic’s patent of two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, which have been linked to increased cancer risk in both women and men.  The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging this patent on behalf of a group of researchers, medical groups and patients. The timing of the hearing is rather serendipitous, just one day after the 10th anniversary of the completion of the Human Genome Project. The Human Genome Project, a jointly funded venture from the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health, has opened the door to a wide array of genetic tests and targeted interventions. Continue reading →

Speak up or Watch out: Why medical research is at risk with Sequestration

It’s all over the news: The federal government is headed for significant, across-the-board budget cuts. Sequestration, or 10 years of automatic spending cuts, is a self-inflicted consequence passed by Congress, aimed to be a drastic outcome of failing to agree on a federal deficit-reduction package. Some Members of Congress argue that the sequester will not have a significant impact; they claim that the 5.1% cuts made in 2013 are only a drop in the bucket and there is no need to worry. However, the amount of money that the National Institutes of Health will lose, $1.56 billion, could fund the entire National Institute of Mental Health for more than a year. Cuts to the National Science Foundation total $359 million, more than 80% of the entire FY12 budget from NSF for homeland security research, including emergency planning and response. Research!America’s fact sheet on the effects of sequestration on these agencies, as well as the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control can be found here.

What will cuts to NIH, NSF and other agencies mean to biomedical and health research?

The NIH and NSF fund the basic science that fuels medical innovation and the health services research that enables smart policy making by all levels of government and by health care providers in support of high-quality health care delivery. The CDC funds an enormous range of research and public health services essential to the basic health and safety of Americans. Cuts to these agencies will compromise medical progress, stymie deficit reduction and render it more difficult to reinvigorate our economy. Cuts to public health funding, which is already inadequate, will degrade the foundation for safe and healthy communities across our nation. In short, these cuts will have dramatic impact on the health of our nation. Polls commissioned by Research!America consistently show that Americans highly value medical research and would even pay higher taxes if they knew the dollars would be devoted to that research. And we will never bend the health care cost curve without medical research to overcome disabling and costly conditions like Alzheimer’s and health services research to identify and evaluate viable and patient-sensitive cost savings strategies.

Finally, cuts to funding for biomedical and health research jeopardize the product of years of investment in our nation’s research capabilities. Those investments have produced the most sophisticated and productive medical research enterprise in the world. If funding declines, so will opportunities for young scientists. So will the capacity for our nation’s researchers to break new ground. So will the pipeline that fuels private sector innovation and jobs.

Think about it: Advances in ongoing and promising medical research will invariably be halted due to a lack of funds for these projects. One such project is ongoing research at Georgetown’s Lombardi Cancer Center in Washington, DC. There, researchers have worked for years on a preventative strategy for breast cancer focused on anti-estrogen treatment, and this work is ready to move into clinical trials. Without funding, this lifesaving research could be halted. A study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that the frequency of metastatic breast cancer is on the rise in young women, a troubling trend in light of the threat to biomedical and health research funding.

So what can we do?

Contact your representatives in Congress and tell them how important it is to STOP sequestration! Click here to send an email now.

Sign the petition from AAAS to “Speak Up for Science.”

Share these resources with your professional network, and encourage your peers to speak up for research now!

One Voice for Global Health

When advocates speak with one voice, amazing things can happen. Here in the U.S., with help from high-visibility breast cancer advocates, the federal budget for breast cancer research has increased nearly eight-fold over a 20-year span. More recently, the National Alzheimer’s Project Act redoubles public efforts to find a cure for this devastating disease.

The fight against AIDS stands as perhaps the most telling example of the power of advocacy. The voices of so many, amplified by entertainment heavyweights, have helped shine a light onto efforts at combating the disease, from prevention to treatment.

Research, of course, plays no small part in either area, from the tantalizing goal of a vaccine to the antiretrovirals that have turned an HIV diagnosis from a death sentence into a manageable chronic disease. And one panelist at AIDS 2012 – going on this week in Washington, DC – sees research as an entryway into advocacy.

“Research is an opportunity to build sustainable advocates behind one voice for global health,” said Prince Bahati of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative.

Research brings together diverse constituencies: It pushes the frontiers of scientific knowledge, it improves health around the globe and it positively affects local economies.

But one word in his statement is not to be minimized: “opportunity.” Research, and the people who perform research, cannot be the sole voice; instead, research becomes a gateway to help build out the advocacy community. A full – and full-throated – advocacy community has the chance to change the world.

Part of that diversity was on display all week at the conference: Veterans groups and faith-based organizations were among the constituencies represented.

Those many, diverse voices are needed now more than ever. The U.S. contribution to AIDS research is significant, but there are no priorities in the current political climate. Christine Lubinski of the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) encouraged the audience to do its homework before meeting with congressional offices. She cited Research!America’s economic impact work, saying that we must try to demonstrate a domestic constituency for these issues, with U.S.-based research being a clear entry point. She also gave some words of advice for those who face policy makers that say our AIDS situation is leading us into a “treatment mortgage” for 30 years: It is actually a temporary bridge until research yields a vaccine. Congress used to have similar debates regarding polio and the “iron lung,” debates that evaporated when science produced a polio vaccine.

We also know that sometimes research has unexpected and multiple benefits for worldwide health. For example, AZT was developed to treat cancer. It failed in that regard, but federally funded scientists discovered that it works for HIV/AIDS.

Research and its advocates, as part of the larger advocacy community, have a clear role to play. Each voice adds to the chorus – and we’ve seen what those voices can do.