|
The following was released by Samuel
S. Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer
Prevention Coalition and Quentin Young, MD, Chairman
of the Health and Medicine Policy Research Group and past
President of the American Public Health Association.
Operating behind closed doors and with
powerful political connections, Dr.
Samuel Epstein, charges the American Cancer Society
(ACS) with forging a questionably
legal alliance with the federal Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) in attempts
to hijack the National Cancer Program.
The ACS is also charged with virtual
neglect of cancer prevention.
Dr. Quentin Young, warns: "The ACS political agenda
reveals a pattern of self
interest, conflicts of interest, lack of accountability
and non-transparency to all of which the media
have responded with deafening silence".
Among their concerns:
The National Cancer Act, the cornerstone
of the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) war on cancer,
is under powerful attack by the ACS, the world's largest
non-religious "charity".
The plan was hatched in September 1998
when, meeting behind closed doors, the ACS created a "National
Dialogue on Cancer" (NDC), co-chaired by former President
Bush and Barbara Bush, with representatives from the CDC,
the giant cancer drug industry, and Collaborating Partners
from survivor advocacy groups.
The NDC leadership then unilaterally
spun off a National Cancer Legislative Committee, CO-chaired
by John Seffrin, CEO of the ACS and Dr. Vincent DeVita,
Director of the Yale Cancer Center and former NCI Director,
to advise Congress on re-writing the National Cancer Act.
The relationships between the ACS, NDC
and its Legislative Committee raise questions on conflicts
of interest. John Durant, former executive president of
the American Society for Clinical Oncology, charged: "It
has always seemed to me that this was an issue of control
by the ACS over the cancer agenda -- .
They are protecting their own fundraising
capacity" from competition by survivor groups. The
leading U.S. charity watchdog, The Chronicle of Philanthropy,
further concluded, "The
ACS is more interested in accumulating wealth than saving
lives".
The ACS-CDC relationship is focused
on diverting political emphasis and funds away from NCI's
peer-reviewed scientific research to CDC's community programs,
which center on community screening, behavioral intervention,
and tobacco cessation rather than prevention.
There are major concerns on interlocking
ACS-CDC interests. CDC
has improperly funded ACS with a $3 million sole
source four-year cooperative agreement. In turn, ACS has
made strong efforts to upgrade CDC's role in the National
Cancer Program, increase appropriations for CDC's non-peer
reviewed programs, and facilitate its access to tobacco
litigation money.
The ACS priority for tobacco cessation
programs is inconsistent with its strong ties to the industry.
Shandwick International, representing R.J. Reynolds, and
Edelman, representing Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company,
have been major PR firms for the NDC and its Legislative
Committee.
ACS has
made questionably legal contributions to Democratic and
Republican Governors' Associations.
"We wanted to look like players and be players",
ACS explained.
DeVita, the Legislative Committee co-chair,
is also chairman of the Medical Advisory Board of CancerSource.com,
a website launched by Jones & Bartlett which publishes
the ACS Consumer's Guide to Cancer Drugs; three other members
of the Committee also serve on the board. DeVita thus appears
to be developing his business interests in a publicly-funded
forum.
The ACS has a longstanding track record
of indifference and even hostility
to cancer prevention.
This is particularly disturbing in view
of the escalating incidence of cancer now striking one in
two men and one in three women in their lifetimes. Recent
examples include issuing a joint statement with the Chlorine
Institute justifying the continued global use of persistent
organochlorine pesticides, and also supporting the industry
in trivializing dietary pesticide residues as avoidable
risks of childhood cancer.
ACS policies are further exemplified
by allocating under 0.1 percent of its $700 million annual
budget to environmental and occupational causes of cancer.
These considerations clearly disqualify
the ACS from any leadership role in the National Cancer
Program. The public should be encouraged to redirect funding
away from the ACS to cancer prevention advocacy groups.
ACS conduct, particularly its political lobbying and relationship
to CDC, should be investigated by Congressional Appropriations
and Oversight committees. These committees should also recommend
that the National Cancer Program direct the highest priority
to cancer prevention.
Contacts:
Samuel S. Epstein, MD,
Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and emeritus
professor Environmental and Occupational Medicine,
University of Illinois School of Public Health,
Chicago, 312-996-2297, fax 312-996-1374,
or epstein@uic.edu
Web site: http://www.preventcancer.com/
Quentin D. Young, MD,
Chairman of the Health and Medicine Policy Research Group,
Chicago, 312-922-8057, or
info@hmprg.org
| 