Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 October 2011
Through the 1980s and early 1990s, the course of American health research was increasingly shaped by politically-aggressive activism for two particular diseases, breast cancer and AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome). Even as national stakes rose, both in dollars spent and growing demands on the medical system, breast cancer and AIDS advocates made government policy-making for research ever more public and controversial. Through skillful cultivation of political strength, interest groups transformed individual health problems into collective demands, winning notable policy influence in federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Activists directly challenged fundamental principles of both government and medical systems, fighting to affect distribution of research funds and questioning well-established scientific methods and professional values. In the contest for decision-making power, those players achieved remarkable success in influencing and infiltrating (some critics said, undermining) both the politics and science of medical research. Between 1990 and 1995, federal appropriations for breast cancer study rose from $90 million to $465 million, while in that same period, NIH AIDS research rose from $743.53 million to $1,338 billion.
1. Figures from the National Cancer Institute and the American Foundation for AIDS Research.
2. Rettig, Richard A., Cancer Crusade: The Story of the National Cancer Act of 1971 (Princeton, NJ, 1977)Google Scholar; Patterson, James T., The Dread Disease: Cancer and Modem American Culture (Cambridge, Mass., 1987)Google Scholar; and Proctor, Robert, Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don't Know About Cancer (New York, 1995)Google Scholar. For a broader look, see Strickland, Stephen P., Politics, Science, and Dread Disease: A Short History of United States Medical Research Policy (Cambridge, Mass., 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Harden, Victoria A., Inventing the NIH: Federal Biomedical Policy, 1887–1937 (Baltimore, 1986).Google Scholar
3. Love, Susan M. with Lindsey, Karen, Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book (Reading, Mass., 1995), 525Google Scholar; and Wachter, Robert M., “AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Health,” The New England Journal of Medicine 326, no. 2; January 9, 1992: 129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. The Boston Women's Health Book Collective, The New Our Bodies, Ourselves: A Book By and For Women (New York, 1984)Google Scholar; and Gallagher, Dana M. and Richwald, Gary A., “Feminism and Regulation Collide: The Food and Drug Administration's Approval of the Cervical Cap,” Women and Health 15.2 (1989): 87–97Google Scholar. See also Beckwith, Barbara, “Boston Women's Health Book Collective: Women Empowering Women,” Women and Health 10 (Spring 1985): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. On DES, see Dutton, Diana, Worse Than the Disease (Cambridge, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for the Shield, Dalkon, Mintz, Morton, At Any Cost (New York, 1985)Google Scholar. For detail on DES development and science issues, see Marcus, Alan I, Cancer from Beef: DES, Federal Food Regulation, and Consumer Confidence (Baltimore, 1994.)Google Scholar
6. Rosser, Sue, Women's Health—Missing from U.S. Medicine (Bloomington, Ind., 1994)Google Scholar; Nechas, Eileen and Foley, Denise, Unequal Treatment (New York, 1994)Google Scholar; Low, Kathryn Graff et al. , “Women Participants in Research: Assessing Progress,” Women and Health 22.1 (1994): 79–98Google Scholar; Palca, Joseph, “Women Left Out at NIH,” Science 248, June 29, 1990: 1601CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and “Is There Still Too Much Extrapolation From Data on Middle-aged White Men?” JAMA 263, no. 8; February 23, 1990: 1049–1050. See also Oberman, Michelle, “Real and Perceived Legal Barriers to the Inclusion of Women in Clinical Trials,” in Reframing Women's Health, ed. Dan, Alice (Thousand Oaks, Gal., 1994), 266–275.Google Scholar
7. Miller, Carol, “Women's Health: A Focus for the 1990s,” Bioscience 40, no. 11, Dec. 1990: 817CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Palca, Joseph, “Women Left Out at NIH,” and “NIH Adjusts Attitudes Toward Women,” Science 249, September 21, 1990: 1374Google Scholar. During roughly the same period, the U.S. Public Health Service also created a new Office on Women's Health.
8. “Is There Still Too Much Extrapolation From Data on Middle-aged White Men?” See also Cotton, Paul, “Example Abound of Gaps in Medical Knowledge Because of Groups Excluded From Scientific Study,” JAMA 263, no. 8, February 23, 1990: 1051–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Angell, Marcia, “Caring for Women's Health—What is the Problem?” The New England Journal of Medicine 329, no. 4; July 22, 1993: 271–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Low, Kathryn Graff et al. , “Women Participants in Research: Assessing Progress,” Women and Health 22.1 (1994): 79–98.Google Scholar
10. Cotton, Paul, “Women's Health Initiative Leads Way as Research Begins to Fill Gender Gaps,” JAMA 267, no. 4, January 22/29, 1992: 469CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “NIH Overwhelmed by Response to Women's Health Initiative,” Science 252, May 10, 1991: 767.Google Scholar
12. Kirschstein, Ruth, “From the NIH: Largest US Clinical Trial Ever Gets Under Way,” JAMA 270, no. 13; October 6, 1993: 1521CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Palca, Joseph, “NIH Unveils Plan for Women's Health Project,” Science 254, November 8, 1991: 792CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Paul Cotton, “Women's Health Initiative Leads Way as Research Begins to Fill Gender Gaps;” Committee to Review the NIH Women's Health Initiative, Institute of Medicine, An Assessment of the NIH's Women's Health Initiative (Washington, D.C., 1993), 90Google Scholar; and Wheeler, David, “Women's Health Study Under Fire,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 10, 1993: A9 and A11.Google Scholar
13. Susan M. Love with Karen Lindsey, Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book, 518.
15. Gorman, Christine, “Breast-Cancer Politics,” Time, November 1, 1993: 74Google Scholar.; and Bell, Laura, “Breast Cancer Research Boom,” Chicago Tribune, August 27, 1995, 6:8.Google Scholar
16. Ferraro, Susan, “The Anguished Politics of Breast Cancer,” The New York Times Magazine, August 15, 1993: 24–27+Google Scholar; and Kolata, Gina, “Weighing Spending on Breast Cancer,” New York Times, October 20, 1993: C14.Google Scholar
17. Shilts, Randy, And the Band Played On (New York, 1988)Google Scholar; and Panem, Sandra, AIDS Bureaucracy (Cambridge, Mass., 1988).Google Scholar
18. Kramer, Larry, “The Plague Years,” in The AIDS Reader, ed. McKenzie, Nancy (New York, 1991), 113–121Google Scholar; Miller, Russell, “Act UP Hits the Road,” New York Journal, September 2, 1991Google Scholar; Salholz, Eloise, “Acting Up to Fight AIDS,” Newsweek, June 6, 1988: 42Google Scholar; and Taylor, Paul, “AIDS Guerrillas,” New York Magazine, November 12, 1990: 65–73Google Scholar. See also Gamson, Josh, “Silence, Death, and the Invisible Enemy,” Social Problems 36 (October 1989): 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Paul Taylor, “AIDS Guerrillas.”
20. For more, see Edgar, Harold and Rothman, David J., “New Rules for New Drugs: The Challenge of AIDS to the Regulatory Process,” in A Disease of Society, eds. Nelkin, Dorothy (Cambridge, 1991), 84–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. “Protesters Ask for More,” Nature 345, May 31, 1990: 376. Nor did controversy necessarily end once drugs passed FDA requirements; manufacturers as well as government officials became targets of protest. In the late 1980s, ACT-UP attacked pharmaceutical giant Burroughs Wellcome for reputed price-gouging on its anti-AIDS medication AZT, a year's worth of which was priced at $10,000 in its appearance on the market. Complaining that the drug company was taking profit margins allegedly approaching 80 percent, ACT-UP mounted protests at the firm's headquarters and the New York Stock Exchange, literally dragging floor trading to a halt. While the company insisted that outsiders failed to appreciate the enormous start-up cost of developing such new drugs, it nonetheless cut AZTs selling price roughly 33 percent over the next few years.
22. Elliott, Stuart, “Advertising,” New York Times, December 1, 1994: C11Google Scholar. ironically, another slogan, “If a murderer kills you, it's homicide … If the FDA kills you, it's just being cautious,” came from the opposite end of the political spectrum, an advertisement placed by a conservative anti-regulation foundation. Leon Jaroff, “The Commish Under Fire,” Time, January 8,1996: 60. While AIDS activists attacked the FDA's purported slowness in approval from the perspective of dying patients, business groups and conservatives led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich charged the FDA with committing bureaucratic evil through the complexity of its regulatory requirements. Hilts, Philip J., “FDA Becomes Target of Empowered Groups,” New York Times, February 12, 1995; 1:12Google Scholar; and Mack, Connie, “Lift the FDA Roadblock on Experimental Drugs,” New York Times, February 19, 1995, 4:12.Google Scholar
23. Quirk, Paul J., “Food and Drug Administration,” in The Politics of Regulation, ed. Wilson, James Q. (New York, 1990), 191–235Google Scholar; Temin, Peter, Taking Your Medicine: Drug Regulation in the United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Lasagna, Louis, “Congress, the FDA, and New Drug Development: Before and After 1962,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 32 (Spring 1989): 322–343CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. See also James Harvey Young, “Drugs and the 1906 Law”; David Cavers, “The Evolution of the Contemporary System of Drug Regulation Under the 1938 Act”; and Lasagna, Louis, “1938–1968: The FDA, the Drug Industry, The Medical Profession, and the Public,” all in Safeguarding the Public: Historical Aspects of Medicinal Drug Control, ed. Blake, John B. (Baltimore, 1970).Google Scholar
24. Kessler, David A., “The Regulation of Investigational Drugs,” The New England Journal of Medicine 320, no. 5, February 2, 1989: 281–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Specter, Michael, “A Clash of Caution and Urgency,” Washington Post, October 26, 1987: A15Google Scholar; Delaney, Martin, “Patient Access to Experimental Therapy,” JAMA 261, no. 16, April 28, 1989: 2444, 2447CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and Nussbaum, Bruce, Good Intentions: How Big Business and the Medical Establishment are Corrupting the Fight Against AIDS (New York, 1990).Google Scholar
26. Iglehart, John, “The Food and Drug Administration and Its Problems,” The New England Journal of Medicine 325, no. 3, July 18, 1991, 217–220CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and David A. Kessler, “The Regulation of Investigational Drugs.”
27. Similarly, in 1995, NCI acquired a new director, Richard Klausner, with an explicit mission, apparently endorsed by NIH, to cut through bureaucracy and so revitalize the agency. Kolata, Gina, “New Administrator is ‘Not an Administrator,’” New York Times, December 12, 1995: B5, B9.Google Scholar
28. John Iglehart, “The Food and Drug Administration and Its Problems;” David A. Kessler, “The Regulation of Investigational Drugs,” 286; “Snipping Away at the Red Tape on Drugs,” U.S. News & World Report, November 20, 1995: 37; and Hilts, Philip J., “FDA Approves a New Drug to Attack the AIDS Virus,” New York Times, December 8, 1995: A9.Google Scholar
29. “Snipping Away at the Red Tape on Drugs;” and Philip J. Hilts, “FDA Approves a New Drug to Attack the AIDS Virus.” In 1996, however, the FDA faced new challenge with Senate and House moves to force further acceleration in agency procedure. Proposed bills spoke about requiring a four-month deadline for action on drugs to fight life-threatening disease and six months for all other applications; FDA failure to meet such time limits would give an automatic go-ahead to the medicine in question for the United States as long as European or British authority had already approved it. The drive for such legislation drew heavily on pharmaceutical business interests; in hearings, Senator Dan Coats accused the FDA of bearing an “approval bias against companies.” Denying such prejudice, Kessler warned that such strict deadlines would lead to a drastic Thalidomide-style mistake one day; but House interests talked about going further, allowing some privatization of the drug review process. ABC Nightly News, February 27, 1996.
30. Rich, Frank, “Mary Fisher Now,” New York Times, May 5, 1995: A17Google Scholar; Rogers, Patrick, “Surviving the Second Wave,” Newsweek, September 19, 1994: 50–51Google Scholar; Carey, John, “What Happened to the War on AIDS” Business Week, July 2, 1994: 34Google Scholar; Dunlap, David, “A Plea to Clinton to Lead US Efforts Against AIDS,” New York Times, December 7, 1995: A14Google Scholar; and Hilts, Philip J., “AIDS Death Rate Rising in 25–44 Age Group,” New York Times, February 16, 1996: A10.Google Scholar
31. Gross, J., “Turning Disease into Political Cause: First AIDS, and Now Breast Cancer,” New York Times, January 7, 1991: A12.Google Scholar
32. Brown, Phyllida, “Activists Home in on Basic Research,” New Scientist, July 18, 1992: 10.Google Scholar
33. Science 251, January 11, 1991: 159.
34. In 1994, over 182,000 American women faced diagnosis of breast cancer, while about 46,000 die from breast cancer per year. The figure “one in nine” was used most commonly in popular discussions, though some breast cancer observers talked about “one in eight” or “one in ten.”
35. February, 1996 fundraising letter from the National Breast Cancer Coalition.
36. Complicating the efforts to establish the importance of regular mammograms firmly in women's minds, however, medical organizations and doctors disagreed about the best age to start testing. Wallis, Claudia, “A Puzzling Plague,” Time, January 14, 1991: 48–52.Google Scholar
37. Hilts, Philip J., “U.S. Breast Cancer Deaths Fell Nearly 5 Percent in Three Years,” New York Times, January 13, 1995: A17Google Scholar. Screening also complicated scientific questions, since new microscopic and molecular diagnostic techniques permitted researchers to find tiny cancer cell clusters, which some researchers suggested might carry a different meaning than full cancer, proving fundamentally harmless. Autopsies done on females age forty to fifty detected tiny breast tumors in 39 percent, “so quiescent [that]… had they been detected while the woman was alive, they would have been labeled as breast cancer” though not fitting the popular image of cancer as a rapidly spreading mass. Researchers expressed concern that as ability to detect smaller tumors increased, practitioners would face the challenge of deciding how aggressively to treat spots which might or might not turn deadly. Kolata, Gina, “New Ability to Find Earliest Cancers: A Mixed Blessing,” New York Times, November 8, 1994: B5, B8.Google Scholar
38. “Confronting Breast Cancer: An Interview with Susan Love,” Technology Review (May/June 1993): 4748.
40. From the late 1980s on, a number of medical studies found evidence of gender differentials in diagnosis and treatment of heart disease; in general, men complaining of angina or with potentially troublesome indicators were referred for further testing and surgery earlier and more frequently than women with similar or worse conditions. Ayanian, John Z. and Epstem, Arnold M., “Differences in the Use of Procedures Between Women and Men Hospitalized for Coronary Heart Disease,” The New England journal of Medicine 325, no. 4, July 25, 1991: 221–225CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Goldsmith, Marsha, “Heart Research Efforts Aim at Fairness to Women in Terms of Causes, Care of Cardiac Disorders,” JAMA 264, no. 4, December 26, 1990: 3112–3113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Tobin, Jonathan et al. , “Sex Bias in Considering Coronary Bypass Surgery,” Annals of Internal Medicine 107 (1987): 19–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and Steingart, Richard M. et al. , “Sex Differences in the Management of Coronary Artery Disease,” The New England Journal of Medicine 325, no. 4, July 25, 1991: 226–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Brody, Jane, “Cancer Cases Are Up, But the Future Isn't Bleak,” New York Times, February 1, 1995: B6Google Scholar; Waldron, Ingrid, Lye, Diane, and Brandon, Anastasia, “Gender Differences in Teenage Smoking,” Womenand Health 17.2 (1991): 65–87Google Scholar; and Mason, James O., “A National Agenda for Women's Health,” JAMA 267, no. 4, January 22/29, 1992: 482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Jenks, Susan, “Cancer Experts Set Research Agenda for Women's Health in the 1990s,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 83, no. 20; October 16, 1991: 1443–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Cancer War Has Stalled, A Panel Says,” New York Times, September 30, 1994: A11 Among other suggestions, the reviewers advocated creating a cabinet-level cancer-coordinating position, investing at least $60 million yearly to translate scientific advances into clinical testing, and terminating government support for tobacco production and sale. See also Chubin, Daryl, “Research Missions and the Public: Over-Selling and Buying the U.S. War on Cancer,” Citizen Participation in Science Policy, ed. Petersen, James C. (Amherst, Mass., 1984): 109–129.Google Scholar
43. Susan M. Love with Karen Lindsey, Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book., 523–524; “Should the Labs Get Hit?' U.S. News & World Report November 6, 1995: 83; and Pear, Robert, “For Health Agency, A Fiscal Wake-Up Call,” New York Times, February 20, 1995: A6.Google Scholar
44. ABC Nightly News, February 27,1996; and February, 1996 fundraising letter from the National Breast Cancer Coalition.
45. Culliton, Barbara J., “NIH Push for Women's Health,” Nature 353, October 3, 1991: 383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Guttman, Monika, “Chasing Breast Cancer,” USA Weekend, January 13–15, 1995: 24Google Scholar; and Gina Kolata, “Weighing Spending on Breast Cancer.” Similarly, regarding AIDS, two Ohio State University doctors wrote The New England Journal of Medicine in 1988 to “question the wisdom of allowing its dramatic nature and the public outcry it generates to dictate public policy in health care funding….” Noting that annual American suicides exceeded the 1988 total of people with AIDS, they called it “unreasonable” for the* Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration to devote 22 percent of total funds to AIDS-related investigations. Such an emphasis, they worried, might draw researchers away from other vital areas of study or induce some to alter projects to include AIDS patients to win grants. Dilsaver, Steven C. and Coffman, Jeffrey A., “Effect of Generous Funding for AIDS Research on General Biomedical Research,” The New England journal of Medicme 318. no. 16, April 21, 1988: 1071–1072.Google ScholarPubMed
47. Susan M. Love with Karen Lindsey, Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book, 523–524; and Quindlen, Anna, “Competitive Cancer,” New York Times, October 31, 1993, 4:17.Google Scholar
48. Burd, Stephen, “NIH Issues Rules Requiring Women and Minorities in Clinical Trials,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 6, 1994: A50Google Scholar; and Kolata, Gina, “FDA Debate on Speedy Access to AIDS Drugs is Reopening,” New York Times, September 12, 1994: A13.Google Scholar
49. Edgar, Harold and Rothman, David J., “New Rules for New Drugs: The Challenge of AIDS to the Regulatory Process,” in A Disease of Society, eds. Nelkin, Dorothy et al. (Cambridge, 1991), 97Google Scholar; and Cooper, Ellen, “Controlled Clinical Trials of AIDS Drugs: The Best Hope,” JAMA 261, no. 16, April 28, 1989: 2445CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. Advocates maintained that enough people with AIDS would still sign up for trials, either out of “simple altruism” or to receive “free medical care” and “remain in line for future studies.” Moreover, one activist wrote in JAMA any policy limiting access to new medicine to impel enough subjects to enter testing would seem like “morally offensive” blackmail to AIDS patients, even if researchers emphasized that such tests were crucial to the noble goal of assuring scientific progress. Martin Delaney, “Patient Access to Experimental Therapy.”
50. Oakley, Ann, “Who's Afraid of the Randomized Controlled Trial? Some Dilemmas of the Scientific Method and ‘Good’ Research Practice,” Women and Health 15.4 (1989): 25–53.Google Scholar
51. Kolata, Gina, “Women Rejecting Trials for Testing A Cancer Therapy,” New York Times, February 15, 1995: A1 and B7Google Scholar; Smigel, Kara, “Women Flock to ABMT for Breast Cancer Without Final Proof,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 87, no. 13, July 5, 1995: 952–955CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and Mathews, James, “NCI Survey Explores the MD's Perspective on ABMT Trials,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 87, no. 20, October 18, 1995: 1510–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Some medical experts indicated that the cure rate for all forms of life-endangering cancers might improve to as much as 75 percent within ten years, but such promise was endangered because just two to three percent of adult cancer patients participated in clinical testing to help investigate and establish better treatment. Brody, Jane, “Personal Health,” New York Times, November 16, 1994: B8Google Scholar. Brody noted that low enrollment could also be traced to doctors who discouraged patients from joining trials (out of fear of complicated regulations and loss of control over the case), as well as practical problems for potential subjects (lack of transportation or child care, for example.)
52. Arras, John D., “Noncompliance in AIDS Research,” Hastings Center Report, September/October 1990: 24–32.Google Scholar
53. “Conflict Grows Over Breast Cancer Strategy,” Nature 368, March 3, 1994: 7.
54. Barbara J. Culliton, “NIH Push for Women's Health.”
55. Susan Rennie, “Breast Cancer Prevention: Diet Vs. Drugs,” Ms., May/June, 1993: 39–40, 42; Liane Clorfene-Casten, “The Environmental Link to Breast Cancer,” Ms., May/June, 1993: 54; and Liane Clorfene-Casten, “Inside The Cancer Establishment,” Ms., May/ June, 1993: 57.
56. Susan Ferraro, “The Anguished Politics of Breast Cancer,” 62; and Liane Clorfene-Casten, “The Environmental Link to Breast Cancer,” 52–56.
57. Lee, Felicia R., “U.S. Cuts AIDS Research Grants in New York City,” New York Times, November 8, 1994: A1, B10.Google Scholar
58. Miller, Susan Katz, “Faith in ‘False Cure’ Leads to Renewed Trials,” New Scientist, November 7, 1992: 7.Google Scholar
59. Gorman, Christine, “Are Animal Organs Safe for People,” Time, January 15, 1996: 58–59.Google Scholar
60. Hand, Roger, “Alternative Therapies Used by Patients With AIDS,” The New England Journal of Medicine 320, no. 10, March 9, 1990Google Scholar; Eisenberg, David M. et al. , “Unconventional Medicine in the United States,” The New England Journal of Medicine 328, no. 4, January 28, 1993: 246–252CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Wilson, Robin, “Unconventional Cures,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 12, 1996: A15–A16Google Scholar; and Carney, Tom, “Politics, Science Colliding in Feud,” Des Monies Register, December 4, 1994: 1B and 3B.Google Scholar
61. See Harding, Sandra, The Science Question inFeminism (Ithaca, NY, 1986)Google Scholar; and Gross, Paul R. and Levitt, Norman, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science (Baltimore, 1994)Google Scholar. Gross and Levitt also targeted radical environmentalism, Afrocentrism, AIDS activism, animal rights, and postmodern literary theory as sources of “open hostility… toward the assumption, which one might have supposed universal among educated people, that scientific knowledge is reasonably reliable….” For a critique of Gross and Levitt, see Edis, Taner and Bix, Amy Sue, “Bashing the Science Bashers: Review of Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science”; Skeptical Inquirer 19.2 (March/April, 1995): 46–48.Google Scholar
62. February, 1996 fundraising letter from the National Breast Cancer Coalition.
63. Wachter, Robert M., “AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Health,” The New England Journal of Medicine 326, no. 2, January 9, 1992: 129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed