Cancer cure important, but pursue breakthrough wisely

Not all problems require a government solution.

As early voting continues on 16 state constitutional amendments, we urge citizens to reject Proposition 15, which would increase state debt and the role of government.

To be sure, Proposition 15's creation of a state cancer research institute would benefit many Texans. The worthiness of the cause is not the issue, though. Citizens should resist the urge to trust government to solve every problem.

Why give the state the burden -- and power -- to tackle diseases that philanthropy and free markets already treat? Americans recognize the devastation cancer wreaks on families, so they have given freely to private researchers making progress toward cures. The American Cancer Society counted $434 million in active grants across the United States as of July 1. And in the 10 years since its founding, the Lance Armstrong Foundation -- named for the cyclist who has been one of Proposition 15's most vocal supporters -- has raised $181 million for cancer survivorship programs and research.

Those are just two charitable organizations. With hundreds of other private groups and pharmaceutical companies investing in cancer research, Texans have plenty of opportunities to contribute to cures without seeing $3 billion -- well, make that $4.6 billion, including interest on bonds, critics note -- taken from them through forced government charity.

For all its noble intentions, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute that Proposition 15 would create likely will put less of a dent in cancer than it will in taxpayers' wallets. As Texans for Fiscal Responsibility visiting fellow Ronald Trowbridge notes, an average cancer drug requires an investment of $1.4 billion to pass through the Food and Drug Administration's clearance process. An average drug takes eight years to pass all three phases of FDA clinical trials.

At that rate, the $3 billion taxpayers would spend over a decade would yield a whopping two drugs.

Those truly concerned about cancer could concentrate their efforts more effectively by pushing for eased FDA regulations for experimental treatments. Trowbridge notes his wife, who died of cancer, reduced her pain and prolonged her life seven months by trying an investigational drug, only to see the FDA yank it off shelves.

In a recent feature story on experimental drugs, Lampasas County resident Dr. Eugene Overton, a retired oral surgeon, told the Dispatch Record of his own deep frustrations with government regulations he believes stifle private research and pharmaceutical marketing.

Instead of raising taxes to fund the issuance of bonds, University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein suggests Texans take more effective action: fighting for passage of the congressional ACCESS Act. The legislation, as developed by Senate Bill 1956 and House Resolution 6303, would allow earlier access to investigational drugs the FDA has approved for continuing testing on patients. Patients would receive warnings about potential risks and, with doctors' advice, could decide whether to try experimental treatment.

Texans also may want to temper their enthusiasm for government-subsidized research by reminding themselves other states would have access to the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute's findings. In other words, they get the medical gain while we get the fiscal pain.

In contrast, Epstein argues liberalized FDA approval rules would benefit all 50 states with no tax increase.

Finally, voters should consider the wisdom of giving government carte blanche to spend money as it sees fit. Eagle Forum president Cathie Adams told the Houston Chronicle the state could allocate these funds toward controversial embryonic stem cell research. Krista Moody, a spokesman for Gov. Rick Perry, promised the governor is firmly opposed to using these stem cells, but she admitted neither legislation nor the language of the proposed constitutional amendment prohibits the state from funding such research if it wishes.

Rather than hoping a state institute spends funds responsibly, citizens should give according to their conscience to private researchers they trust to pursue ethical medicine.

Obviously, those who oppose Proposition 15 aren't trying to thwart efforts to cure cancer. Voters always retain the option of giving their own money toward the search for solutions. It simply makes sense to spend as effectively -- and as ethically -- as possible, rather than trusting the state to ensure people's health.