You would not have to travel far to see me, I am found most days sipping coffee at La Prima Tazza, but I think I'll pass. Perhaps you could show up some time wearing a big rose.

Speaking of ad hominems, one of mine is David Wysong, another indication Sebelius is in cahoots with the wrong folks and also her comment about Stowers. In your research, look for Stowers money in the coffers of the Democrat Party and some of the PACs who support Democrat candidates (like Tiller's ProKanDo PAC). Lots of Missouri money behind this and it destroys any credibility Sebelius might have on any issue regarding health care.

I personally am very saddened because I had high hopes for this administration, and I think, assuming you bring an open mind to the table, that Tom Burroughs involvement here reduces your ability to simply denounce the opponents as conservative Republicans. I have good friends in Sebelius' administration, and I think they too are disappointed with her stand on this issue.

'Sebelius said she would do everything she could to keep Stowers researchers working in the area. She said collaboration with the institute was key to KU getting designation as a cancer center.'

Research grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and other institutes of the National Institutes of Health are one of the best, if not the best, measures of who is doing significant cancer research. Grants funded by the NCI contain the designation "CA". Data on all NIH research grants is available by state from the following URL:

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/state/state06.htm

The Moffitt Cancer Institute associated with the University of South Florida is an example of an NCI designated Comprehensive Cancer Center, involved in both research and state of the art cancer care.

http://www.moffitt.usf.edu/ http://www.moffitt.usf.edu/site.aspx?spid=5C073EA8E4B74170A19C11F14C079E58

The following are data for FY06 on total NIH grants and NCI (CA) grants for Moffitt, The University of South Florida, KUMC, and Stowers.

Moffitt Cancer Center: 49 NIH grants of which 38 are from NCI

University of South Florida: 49 NIH grants of which 12 are from NCI

KUMC: 49 NIH grants of which 5 are from NCI

Stowers Institute: 13 of which none are from NCI

Certainly, some Stowers researchers are funded by internal funding to do work that might be considered cancer research. However, for the governor to claim that "collaboration with the institute (Stowers) was key to KU getting designation as a cancer center" is absurd.

I think the whole episode with KU Hospital and KUMC illustrates how destructive it is to universities when university administrators and business leaders come to view the university as nothing more than an engine for economic development. To quote Donna Shalala, former Chancellor of U. Wisconsin on the role of the university faculty for a book edited by former Chancellor Budig:
"But a university is not a business. It is a repository of reasoned discourse and a moral force. Bottom-line concerns must be counterbalanced by moral and intellectual ones that have no dollar value." When we forget this and faculty are viewed by higher administrators as simply employees to be managed in a top down fashion we put the university itself in peril.

I think you'll find that Stowers supported Democrat candidates through donations to Tiller's ProKanDo Pac. That was in a story by Jim Sullinger in the Kansas City Star. I suppose he's hostile to KU also? And what evidence do you have that Tom Burroughs is hostile to education? I think you'll find that he's a great friend of education - and KU.

You talk about wanting to share data, but when it comes down to posting, all you offer is ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem attacks against Mr. Simons and his clearly well researched columns, attacks against speaker Neufeld, attacks against Sen. Wagle (who thus far has had little to nothing to do with this debate) and innuendo against Tom Burroughs, a man of moderate political leanings who has had the courage to go against his own governor in order to protect his Wyandotte County constituents from the avarice and greed of her benefactors.

Where are your substantive answers to Mr. Simons' well-grounded and well reasoned columns? How do you explain why he changed positions in the course of doing his own due diligence?

I have no dog in this fight. Quite frankly, I am drawn to this after reading Mr. Simons' columns and watching him peel away the layers of deceit and dishonesty in the same manner that Woodward and Bernstein did years ago during the Watrergate scandal (although I must admit that my knowledge of that event is limited to the Hollywood movie, not historical experience).

In addition to your lack of a substantive argument, I am concerned about your desire to meet me. I am aware that there are stalkers and other predators who haunt these chat rooms and I am puzzled that someone who claims to "no financial interest whatsoever in this issue from any direction" would bother to take the time to try and personally convince someone of the veracity of their position. In my admittedly limited experience on these forums, I have never had such an offer before and I will be contacting the JW staff to bring your offer to their attention.

Correction on NIH grant numbers from the earlier post. The above numbers for CA grants were erroneously taken from only the first page of the NIH spreadsheet. The corrected numbers (as manually counted on the computer screen) are:

Moffitt: 84 NIH grants, 66 of which are from NCI

University of South Florida: 74 NIH grants, 17 of which are from NCI

KUMC: 112 NIH grants, 13 of which are from NCI

Stowers Institute: 13 NIH grants, none of which are from the NCI

The relative paucity of NCI grants at KUMC and Stowers relative to Moffitt and South Florida are apparent from either the partial or complete data.