Ted Kennedy, RFK Jr.’s uncle, shaped the National Cancer Program. Will his nephew follow suit?

Edward Kennedy: Cancer: Is there any American who does not fear that some day their doctor will say, “You have Cancer”?

Is there any American who has not imagined that a stomach ache, a persistent cold, a sore that would not heal meant that their child, their parent, their spouse had cancer?

Is there any disease known to 20th century man which arouses more anxiety or causes more pain and suffering?

The answers to all these questions, I am confident, is a no. Cancer is a disease that invites melodrama. It is a disease about which it is hard to exaggerate.

Among the proudest achievements during my decade as Chairman of the Health Subcommittee is the 1971 National Cancer Act, which started the “War on Cancer”. Today, we will hear of the impressive advancements that have been made over the years in this valiant effort. In the 1950s only 30 percent of cancers were curable. By 1977 that percentage rose to 41 percent, and by 1980, 45 percent of serious cancers were treatable.

Along the way, we have learned much about the problems of cancer. We now know, for example, that up to 80 percent of all cancers are associated with environmental causes. This discovery presents difficult problems that affect our lifestyles, our workplaces, our health care system. Fighting cancer is more than just discovery of a “magic bullet”; it is coming to grips with all the social and economic causes and consequences of cancer.

I have been particularly concerned about the critical problem of transferring our new-found scientific knowledge into tools for our doctors in the communities. As we carry forth important biomedical research, we must not lose sight of the ultimate goal of our research efforts—The prevention and cure of cancer for the greatest number possible.

Our progress has been impressive. But much remains to be done.

Edward Kennedy: Our hearing today marks the 20th anniversary of the National Cancer Act. That legislation, signed into law in 1971, and the amendments which followed, have led to an unprecedented explosion in the understanding of biology at the cellular level, including crucial information about the prevention of cancer and extraordinary improvements in care and treatment.

Before the National Cancer Act, there were no community clinical cancer programs, no national cancer information services for physicians and patients, and no community prevention and control programs. There were much smaller clinical trials, and fewer cancer researchers. Access to specialized care was limited. Only a few comprehensive cancer centers existed.

The expansion of basic research supported by the National Cancer Institute has shed light on cellular processes that were hardly envisioned when we introduced the National Cancer Act two decades ago. By the end of the first decade, the annual budget of the Institute had increased from under $200 million to $1 billion, or 30% of the budget of the entire NIH. Scientists supported and often trained by the Institute under the program expanded our knowledge of the genetic basis· of disease and cell processes.

This deeper understanding led to the development of an entire biotechnology industry. Human proteins were synthesized from cloned genes.

When the deadly AIDS epidemic appeared on the scene, researchers were armed with knowledge and tools that led to the rapid identification of the virus, important diagnostic tests, and useful therapies.

Clinical research and epidemiology supported by the National Cancer Institute have broadened our understanding of the causes of cancer and given us vital means to prevent it. The knowledge that a third of all cancers are caused by tobacco use has clear implications for public policy and individual behavior. More than a quarter of adults use tobacco products, and most started when they were children. Many people are alive and well today because they benefitted from this new information and stopped smoking.

Cancer treatments and cancer cures have prolonged and saved lives and given us a generation of childhood cancer survivors including my own son. Today, cure rates for those under the age of 20 are 66%; they are 75% for those under 10. Two of our witnesses today are survivors of childhood cancer and will present their experiences.

As we will also hear this morning, too many Americans still do not benefit from the knowledge and resources that have become available in the past 20 years.

Dr. [Harold] Freeman, the new Chairman of the President’s Cancer Panel created by the Act, will describe his work on the relationship between poverty, race and cancer mortality. We need a much greater national effort to eliminate that shameful correlation and bring the benefits of the War on Cancer to all Americans.

The vision which inspired the National Cancer Act continues to inspire us today. But we will not realize its potential for the future unless we continue to support it.

In the past decade, the budget for cancer research has declined in real dollars. Although the budget of NIH has risen 27%, the budget of the Cancer Institute has declined by 6%. The decline is even steeper, if the AIDS research funds of the Cancer Institute are not counted.

When the Act was passed in 1971 cancer was the disease that Americans most feared. Despite new health issues and concerns, it is still the number one fear today.

The War on Cancer is far from won. This is no time to lose our momentum or call a retreat.

In recognition of the 20th anniversary of the Act, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute asked individuals who had key roles since 1971 in the administration and oversight of the National Cancer Program to state what they thought the impact of the Act has been. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 83, Number 24, December 18, 1991.

Edward Kennedy: I commend the Journal of the National Cancer Institute for this publication honoring the 20th anniversary of the passage of the National Cancer Act.

That legislation, signed into law in 1971, and the amendments that followed, have led to unprecedented growth in the understanding of cancer at the cellular level and extraordinary improvements in prevention, care, and treatment.

Before the National Cancer Act, there were no community clinical cancer programs, no national cancer information services for physicians and patients, and no community prevention and control programs. There were fewer cancer researchers and much smaller clinical trials. Only a few comprehensive cancer centers existed and access to specialized care was limited.

The expansion of basic research supported by the National Cancer Institute has provided insights into cellular processes that were hardly envisioned two decades ago. Clinical research and epidemiology have broadened our understanding of the cause of cancer and given us vital means to prevent it.

Many people are alive and well today as a result of cancer research. Too many others, however, still do not have access to the knowledge and resources that have become available in the past 20 years. We need a much greater national effort to bring the benefits of the War on Cancer to all Americans.

When the Act was passed in 1971, cancer was the disease that Americans most feared. Despite new health issues and concerns, it is still the number one fear today. The War on Cancer is far from won. This is no time to lose our momentum or sound retreat.

I commend the Journal of the National Cancer Institute for its own contributions to this important effort, and I send my best wishes for continued success in the future.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Chairman, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources
1971 and Present

Richard Rettig: The historic National Cancer Act of 1971 has often been called “Nixon’s War on Cancer,” but it could as easily have been called “Kennedy’s War on Cancer,” and with perhaps greater justification.

In 1969, in his first year as president, Richard Nixon proposed a fiscal 1970 budget with only a 3 percent increase in appropriations for the National Institutes of Health. Significantly, the proposed appropriation for the National Cancer Institute was $181 million, down 2 percent from the prior year. These actions galvanized philanthropist Mary Lasker to organize a task force on behalf of cancer research that included Benno Schmidt Sr., Laurence Rockefeller, Elmer Bobst, Sidney Farber of Boston’s Children’s Cancer Research Foundation, Lee Clark of M.D. Anderson, and others as members.

Lasker had close ties to the Democratic Party dating back to President Harry Truman; she and others on the panel had very close ties to the Kennedy family. In December 1970, the task force reported to the Senate Subcommittee on Health, recommending markedly increased funding and the creation of a National Cancer Authority independent of the NIH. The then-chair of the committee was Sen. Ralph Yarborough (D-Tex.), who would soon leave the Senate, having lost the Democratic primary to Lloyd Bentsen earlier that year. Ted Kennedy, the junior senator from Massachusetts, was assuming the chairmanship, a position from which he would exercise substantial authority and leadership for his entire Senate career. He welcomed the initiative to expand funding for cancer research and to reorganize the NCI as an independent entity.

Nixon, fearing a challenge from Kennedy in the 1972 presidential election, quickly submitted legislation in early 1971 to counter this threat, both on money and organization.

Judith Pearson: The interesting thing was that Nixon was also troubled by so many demons. He felt that no one liked him. He didn’t trust anyone even in his own White House. And the most terrifying thing of all was having to face another Kennedy on a ballot. Good news for Nixon in 1969 was that just before we landed on the moon, Ted Kennedy was involved in the Chappaquiddick incident.

When 1970 dawned, Kennedy wanted redemption, the president was already worried about reelection. All Mary wanted was a cure for cancer. And the three quests converged amid much political intrigue and backroom dealings, and it was absolutely wonderful.

Mary was actually invited to the Nixon White House to view an exhibit by Andrew Wyeth, the American painter.

By that time, Mary had realized the importance of marshaling people from both sides of the aisle.

I mean, let’s face it, everybody gets cancer. Cancer doesn’t care whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, young or old, famous or not. If you’re going to get cancer, you’re going to get cancer.

She used that strategy with all of her lobbying. There was no point in alienating one side against the other—bring ’em all in and let’s get the job done.

She wisely enlisted the help of a very prominent fellow, New Yorker Elmer Bobst, whom Nixon considered his second father, and Bobst was instrumental in the entire quest for a cure for cancer—her entire crusade.

When Mary mentioned her interest in curing cancer, Nixon said, “Oh yeah, Elmer mentioned that to me too. I had a birthday party for him last month, and he mentioned that to me too.”

Other than that one occasion, she never spoke to him about this again. She had her emissaries and proxies do it for her, but she was very communicative with Ted Kennedy. And in fact, he told this famous story when he first entered the Senate, and President Kennedy said to him, “If you want to know what’s going on in medical research, or really anywhere outside of Washington, and maybe somewhat inside of Washington, you better get to know Mary Lasker pretty well.”

And Ted Kennedy took that as a thing to do, particularly because again, she was such good friends with his mother.

Founders Awards

In 1971, as the new Chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senator Kennedy guided final Senate passage of the National Cancer Act. Since then, Senator Kennedy has guided the reauthorization and strengthened the special authorities of the National Cancer Act four times.

In the 1971 debate on the Senate floor, Senator Kennedy stated a national program was essential to “exploit effectively the great opportunities presented by recent advances in cancer research. Through such an approach, backed by the strong commitment of Congress, the President, and the American people, we can mount the effort that is required if we are to eliminate the blight of cancer from modern life.” In 1991, in a hearing before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee on the success of the National Cancer Act, Senator Kennedy reaffirmed his commitment to eliminate the “blight of cancer.”

Several years after the initial passage of the National Cancer Act, Senator Kennedy tested the efficiency of that research progress as he stood by his son who had been diagnosed with cancer. He experienced first-hand our National Cancer Program’s effectiveness. His vigilance and support through the past two decades have ensured that same effectiveness and hope for all our Nation’s citizens.

We are all grateful to Senator Kennedy for his dedication, support and guidance of our National Cancer Program through the past two decades.