family results in many cases in lessened family income, because the money earner is so worried that he is not so efficient.

For the Government, just from the standpoint of a money investment in the total economy, there is no more promising investment than this bill holds. Maybe the cause of cancer will never be found, but it never was so promising as now; and now, it is promising. It may take only $20,000,000, and it may take hundreds and hundreds of millions; but as Mr. Adams testified, as it is a study of growth, which is life itself, it is sure that no moneys can be expended on human life that can give more promise of benefit even on the minimum of what can be done than the study of these malgrowths, these wild growths. The American Cancer Society undertakes in its campaign to educate the public on the symptoms so that the public would go to the doctors much, much sooner than they now do. Contrariwise, I only last week personally came into contact with a case of the wife of one of the rich men in New York, who went to her doctor 9 months ago and had a little sign which she thought might be troublesome, and he told her-everyone makes mistakes-that she need not worry, that it was nothing. Last week one of the leading surgeons of New York examined her and said, "It is hopeless." Had she come in time to him he could have saved her.

In the American Cancer Society, and joined with all others who want to, we want to educate the people to look for the signs of cancer and to go and be diagnosed in time, for it is generally accepted medical opinion that 50 percent of the people who now die of cancer could be saved if they went in time.

Senator PEPPER. And you no doubt want to teach doctors?

Mr. LASKER. In closing, I will come to that, because I am about to close. But even those who are saved today, a great share have to go through surgery to be saved, and that in itself is a torture; so if we could increase and save 90 percent with this grave disease, that is not enough we must try to find the cause and eliminate it. A society such as the American Cancer Society keeps the public and the doctors interested in the subject in a way that they would not be without in its campaigns, as the continuous campaign of the last 15 months has proved.

The raising of funds by the public is in itself a tremendous thing, because a maximum amount of education on cancer symptoms goes on during that period, and if all of the money that is raised in the campaign-and this is only my personal opinion-were thrown away in the Potomac and nothing else done, it would be worth while, because of the concentrated thought both by the medical profession, by the laity, through the press and through the radio that is given to cancer alleviation in the work of the campaign.

Now, what was your question?

Senator PEPPER. I say, you also no doubt want to see the doctors better educated?

Mr. LASKER. It is not the doctors' fault that they are not better educated. Cancer was for years like syphilis-you were not supposed to speak the ugly word! From the moment the word "syphilis" was spoken, look at the advances that have been made-advances before wonderful penicillin and the sulpha drugs came! In the same way,

so cancer. There had not been enough leads, it was considered a sort of hopeless thing, and it has never been given any proper place in the medical schools, and the doctors will be the first to admit that it requires great education among the doctors, requires refresher courses, and requires the training of teachers. To these three ends the American Cancer Society will use much of its funds.

Your bill does not provide for that, so there is ample work for the American Cancer Society and other related societies in addition to research, because research will not in a day or a week give the answer; it is over a long period; but the sufferers are here every day.

However, an organized research such as is proposed is bound to bring, before not too long, valuable leads. For instance, clinical research in the use of radioactive substances and the treatment or cure of cancer has scarcely begun. Organized programs for clinical research in this field and in the clinical use of various hormones in connection with several types of cancer need to be greatly enlarged.

Now, other nations have been ahead of us in agitating for cancer research. In Great Britain there is the British Empire Cancer Society which raised even during the war years on to half a million dollars a year in Britain, which when you consider the sums we spent in this country and their situation is a remarkable thing; I do not know, I have not checked, but I understand Canada with its 11,000,000 people is this year raising $2,000,000. I think they were enabled to do that largely through the campaign from our country which flowed over to their country; so that the moment is ripe for the United States to take the leadership in a world effort, not only to solve cancer and in the meantime to alleviate its extent but just as in the splitting of the atom, the secret of nature on material things was found, there is a very good chance that in the study of growth infinite knowledge will be attained about human life itself; and therefore I am one who wants to join in urging the passage of this bill.

Senator PEPPER. Mr. Lasker, before you conclude, will you tell us whether you approve the amount of $100,000,000 which is mentioned in this bill, and whether you think it should be authorized and then appropriated, and should remain available until expended by this commission?

Mr. LASKER. The American Cancer Society I am sure can raise several times as much money as it now raises. I repeat, that is no credit to the American Cancer Society. It is just amazing to me the hundreds of thousands of people who just rose out of the nowhere and joined us in collecting this money; but we have no guarantee from year to year that we can raise it, and therefore while scientists are working with us, there is a limit to the effort we can go to and the commitments we can make for the future. The existence of a $100,000,000 fund would be an insurance to individual scientists and to institutions that the work would be carried on far enough either for solution or to prove itself, and would be a continuous effort. That is the main reason we are for this bill, is because it would be $100,000,000 fixed. We think that nothing would be more hurtful to the cause of cancer maybe I want to put in "maybe" than to pass a bill a phantom $100,000,000, where the people would feel money in a large enough sum was provided to insure continuous research work in a major way but where the scientists and

the institutions would know differently. For that reason we feel very strongly that this should be a fixed appropriation which the commission would use as it saw fit. Of course, in the beginning they would not be able to use nearly so much as they will as they get momentum.

Does that answer you, Senator?

Senator PEPPER. That is right, but they would be able to make contracts, to engage people over a period of time, to lay out long-range plannings with the assurance that they had money with which to carry out a plan over a course of a few years.

Mr. LASKER. Absolutely. I will give you an instance. I heard of one institution-I do not wish to name it; I know no one connected with it-which had scientists well trained to work on cancer research, but they needed additional laboratory and building facilities. They did not have the money to do it. These men are very respected scientists. They will not leave the institution where they are, but such a fund as proposed in this bill could furnish the facilities they need to further their work. That, a private society cannot do. We cannot build buildings, unless we go out specially on a campaign for that, and then we would have to raise the sum of $100,000,000 in advance, and we could not do that.

Senator PEPPER. So you, Mr. Lasker, as a very eminent and successful businessman, tell us that this is a desirable public expenditure and a good investment by the Government of the United States?

Mr. LASKER. I would feel that my life had been justified, if I had any part in bringing it about.

Senator PEPPER. Senator Gurney, would you like to ask any questions before you go?

Senator GURNEY. No. I am just getting an education, here. I certainly enjoyed it. Thank you, Mr. Lasker, for the information. Senator PEPPER. Have you any questions, Senator Murray?

Senator MURRAY. No. I have greatly enjoyed your testimony, Mr. Lasker.

Senator PEPPER. Mr. Lasker, we said to Mr. Adams, insofar as we do happen to have an official position and can to a degree speak for the people, we want to express public gratitude for not only what you are doing in respect to this measure but for what you and men like you are doing in this field to save human beings from this scourge.

Mr. LASKER. Whatever we are doing, we are doing for ourselves, you know. As 1 in every 8 in America is going to die of cancer under present-day knowledge, maybe of those in this room you Senators and I will be the doomed ones. What we do for cancer we do for ourselves.

Senator PEPPER. Thank you very much. Now, by the way, have you got those amendments that you wanted to leave?

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Lasker, I think Colonel Oughterson was working on that.

Mr. LASKER. Oh. Colonel Oughterson put that in for the society. Senator PEPPER. Very well. We thank you very much, Mr. Lasker. Mr. LASKER. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity. Senator PEPPER. We welcome and thank you very much. You have thrilled us all.

Dr. Daniel Lazlo, Monteflore Hospital, Bronx, New York.

STATEMENT BY DR. DANIEL LAZLO, MONTEFIORE HOSPITAL, BRONX, N. Y.

Dr. LAZLO. I shall make it very brief. I am one of the many cancer research workers. If I may be permitted to show you the program of the last meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in Atlantic City, you will find quite a number of investigators who presented papers at this meeting. A few were from New York, but many of them came from other places-Minneapolis, Minn.; Bethesda, Md.; Madison, Wis.; St. Louis, Mo., and so forth.

I strongly favor the proposed bill, S. 1875, and urge you gentlemen to report it favorably, and I urge you gentlemen not to put in any amendment. My reasons for supporting this legislation were stated at the hearings on H. R. 4502 and were submitted for the record. I plan to give you a copy of this.. However, there were quite a few points raised which I think make it worth while to read one or two paragraphs of this.

My question here, first, was whether cancer is a specialty, and whether we can expect to train cancer specialists in sufficient numbers in a comparatively short time. Now, gentlemen, I have worked in this line for a number of years. I do not consider myself a specialist in cancer. It is my opinion that cancer is not a specialty.

Investigative and clinical work on cancer requires a team of various specialists, such as biologists, chemists, physicists, bacteriologists, pathologists, diagnosticians, surgeons, radiotherapists, and many others. These experts combined make the cancer specialist. They are trained in our various colleges in sufficient numbers.

Can the physician be expected to contribute to the solution of the cancer problem or shall he wholly depend upon the experts in the various branches of basic sciences? I answered:

The past experiences have proven that physicians can be expected to contribute materially to the solution. They were the ones who solved quite a few baffling problems. To mention only a few examples: Robert Koch, a smalltown doctor, who discovered the tubercle bacillus; Banting, the discoverer of insulin; Minot, the discoverer of the liver principle; Goldberger, the pioneer in the work on pellagra. Another question :

Are there places available, where research centers for cancer could be established without great delay? My answer:

I think there are. I propose that a survey of our medical institutions and those which are best equipped to carry on research in cancer be selected. The present lack of such institutions is not an indication of the lack of interest of these institutions in the cancer field, but a lack of funds to carry out such investigations.

Question:

What would be some of the desirable criteria for the establishment of research centers in a medical institution?

My answer to this question was as follows:

(a) First-grade medical staff.

(b) A number of beds earmarked for the admission of curable and incurable cancer patients.

(c) Follow-up clinic and cancer prevention clinic.

(d) Adequate laboratory space.

Full-time laboratory experts would soon be attracted to work in such centers, especially if long-term contracts could be offered.

Now, gentlemen, I proceed with my presentation, if I may read. So far as I recall, none of the testifying witnesses at the hearings before the House committee were opposed to the proposed

legislation. This unanimous support supplements the support of the public opinion, which strongly favors such a bill.

Whereas there is general agreement upon the need of Federal action for cancer research, the methods of applying this proposed Federal aid most effectively may be disputed.

The bill reads that the President shall mobilize at some convenient place in the United States the world's outstanding experts, which seems to imply a huge central organization at one place. However, our present lack of knowledge on the cause and cure of cancer would militate against such a central organization. We cannot possibly compare our present knowledge on cancer with the knowledge we had on atomic energy at the time, when such a central organization was created. Lacking the basic clues, centralization would not be advisable at this time.

Federal support of cancer research apportioned among institutions especially equipped for such work spread over the country, appears to be the ideal method. We should encourage every reasonable approach by every qualified scientist, wherever he may be found. We should encourage the systematic, scientific, conventional approach as well as the seemingly unconventional ideas. The unconventional approach should be supported, too, as history has proven time and again that great discoveries followed original, unexpected, unconventional ideas. And many of such ideas were bitterly fought by the scientists of their time. I could mention many prominent scientists, whom no conscientious administrator of public funds would have dared to support, though their contribution laid the foundation to our present knowledge and civilization.

Setting up an independent agency, appointed by the President as provided in the bill, appears to me the best way to handle Federal aid for cancer research. This independent agency would handle the requests and pass final judgment upon the projects submitted.

There is a reasonable assurance that the institutions submitting and supporting such projects would scrutinize the merits of the proposed investigations thoroughly. Therefore, the burden of administration of the funds would be considerably lessened and the risks involved reduced.

My institution, as I think practically everyone in the country, calls in a standing committee on research to discuss the merits of a research project. In that institution there are a chemist, a physicist, a pathologist, biologist, radiotherapists and many other experts who may say, after discussion, "This project appears to be promising and good enough." If they agree to that extent and if the institution is willing to support it, I think this is quite a fair guaranty that public funds could be spent on that, too.

I also agree with the statements made here that the Federal funds should not discourage private contributions. They should be a very important addition. Private foundations, hospitals, medical schools, industrial organizations, should continue their support.

I feel reasonably sure that a good number of research centers for cancer could be created without any great delay. Should anyone of these produce promising results, the agency would be in the position to centralize and concentrate upon this new line of investigation.