National Cancer Institute director John Neiderhuber worries the NCI 2007 budget could be slashed by five to 10 percent. And he worries that key cancer research will inevitably come to a halt as a result.

Worries stem from budget cuts proposed by President Bush. Cuts would cost the NCI between $36 million and $4.7 billion -- but Bush reports that NCI funding has doubled in the past 10 years and would still remain relatively high. And due to the recent American Cancer Society announcement that cancer deaths dropped for the second straight year, White House spokesman Tony Fratto says, "We're proud of the significant investment that we have made in cancer research. We're also proud of the results showing that researchers are delivering on that investment."

But researchers still worry. They worry cuts will undermine their successes. They feel like the rug is being pulled out from under them, just as they are making significant progress. They suspect 95 clinical trials could be postponed or cancelled, 3,000 patients could miss the opportunity of joining a trial, and some cancers will be completely eliminated from studies.

"There is a real cost in human life," says Allen Lichter, executive vice president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, of the more-than-monetary toll budget cuts will take on NCI research efforts.

One study already on hold, pending funding decisions, is the next phase of a study evaluating whether a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors, can prevent breast cancer. Another research group has opted to stop studying brain tumors. This is a huge loss to patients with this type of cancer, says Lichter.

It's a huge loss to all of us really -- because cancer will affect each of us in some way, some day. And so with cut budgets come cut hopes, cut dreams, and sadly -- cut survival.

The world's largest drug maker -- Pfizer Inc. -- announced Monday it will cut 10,000 jobs and close at least five facilities due to fierce competition from generic drug makers. The goal, says Pfizer spokespeople, is to whittle away annual costs by $2 billion by the end of the year -- to combat the prediction that the company will lose 41 percent of its sales to generic drugs between 2010 and 2012.

Pfizer's other obstacles include expiring drug patents -- costing Pfizer about $14 billion in revenues between 2005 and 2007 -- as well as demands for lower prices by insurers and large purchasers, and repeated requests for evidence of products' worth.

The 10,000 layoffs amount to 10 percent of the company's global workforce and will take jobs from 2,200 United States employees. The company will cut 20 percent of its European sales force, will close three research sites in Michigan and two manufacturing plants in New York and Nebraska, and is considering selling a manufacturing site in Germany and closing two research sites in Japan and France. In the midst of all of this, the company will focus its efforts on transforming the way they do business.

"I believe we must transform the way we've done business in the past in order to be more successful in the future," said Jeffrey Kindler, CEO and chairman of Pfizer. " Incremental evolution is not enough. Fundamental change is imperative -- and it must happen now."

Pfizer's Monday announcement is the second declaration of budget cuts. A previous announcement has the company -- the maker of cancer drugs Aromasin, Ellence, Camptosar, and Sutent -- slashing costs by $4 billion a year until 2008.

Children and teenagers -- mostly girls -- need zinc, a mineral important for maintaining healthy immune systems and healthy skin and for preventing colds and infections. Yet half of all teenage girls have zinc deficiencies.

Red meat is the most effective way of channeling zinc into the body. Perhaps these young girls are eating red meat less than two times per week -- a practice research shows can contribute to zinc deficiencies.

Iron is vital for good health. Menstruating women need it. The elderly need it. Pregnant women need it. And children need it too. But many lack healthy levels of iron.

Red meat contains a lot of iron. And while iron also comes from vegetable sources, meat contains more iron than most foods and is best utilized by the body in this form.

Red meat also contains B vitamins, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, selenium -- and protein, critical for muscle and organ health. Protein from red meat is complete, meaning it contains all the amino acids the body cannot make on its own. Protein helps the body repair and renew.

There is definitely a good side to eating red meat. There is also a bad side.

Red meat has been linked to incidences of bowel cancer, breast cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, arthritis, high cholesterol, clogged arteries, and food poisoning.

Experts say the controversy surrounding red meat comes down to the type of meat we are eating -- and how we are eating it.

There are three official red meats -- pork, lamb, and beef. Pork is the leanest, lamb is the fattiest, and beef is the most nutritious. Red meat is typically high in saturated fats and bad cholesterol. But lean beef is fairly healthy -- if it's not treated with hormones and is truly free from excess fat. The more white you see, the more fat you get.

So here is the trick for all meat-eaters out there -- choose lean meats, seek nutritious cuts of meat, avoid hormone-treated products, steer clear of processed meats (these include more additives and fats than simple cuts of pork, lamb, and beef), read labels carefully, make meat just one component of a balanced diet, and brace yourself for more research and study and discussion that will undoubtedly conclude that meat is good for us. And bad for us too.

Radio Iowa reports that Lance Armstrong wants to fight the final battles against cancer by forming an army to wage war on cancer. Armstrong is in Iowa this week to participate in RAGBRAI, a cycling tour across the state of Iowa, and while there he is also giving interviews and making speeches about cancer and cancer survivorship.

"What we need is an army. We need an army of people. It starts in Iowa," Lance Armstrong said during an appearance in Newton on Wednesday. "Now's the time to make a difference and knock this thing out forever."

At the heart of the matter is federal funding for cancer research. For the first time in 35 years, the federal budget for cancer research has been cut -- which is essential to cancer research. Without federal funding, the advances made toward a cure for cancer are dramatically slowed. Armstrong is on a mission to ignite the political passions of the voters in this country to become an army against cancer.

"We hear every day how we're in the middle of a war, maybe a war in Iraq. It might be a war on terror. Let me tell you about a war. This is a war that's 35 years old and this is the war that's about time in my opinion that we get done with and that we finish," Armstrong said at a political event in Iowa City two days ago.

As part of Livestrong Day, Lance Armstrong and 100 cancer survivors and caregivers went to Washington, D.C. to lobby their congressional representatives for more cancer research funds. Armstrong criticized the Bush administration for cutting taxes while cutting the budget for the National Cancer Institute. "Taking from the poor and giving to the rich has never been a good policy," he told the audience at a Tuesday night reception at the Dirksen Senate Office Building. While visiting congressional representatives, Armstrong and cancer advocates were asking that Congress make cancer a national priority and to financially support the National Cancer Institute programs that result in early diagnosis and treatment and the Center for Disease Control programs that target cancer prevention, detection and treatment needs of each local community.

There are over 10 million cancer survivors alive today. Surviving cancer in such great numbers is a fairly recent phenomenon in the history of this country, as cancer was once considered a death sentence. The U.S. government, under President Bush's leadership has set back cancer research by cutting funding, and if more awareness is not raised about the budget for cancer research, further cuts will be made. Armstrong, and 10 million cancer survivors are becoming a visible and vocal force to be reckoned with, as these are serious issues. Cancer and cancer survivorship cannot be put on a financial back burner of lesser priority. One in three people will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life. For more information, visit the Lance Armstrong Foundation's Livestrong.