Cancer Research Funding
Cancer Research Funding I found this rather controversial article on something that calls itself “the national website of Wales” - see top article “Health Chief despairs at cancer cash”
icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/health/
It raises a couple of important points in my mind. One is the view that a greater proportion of money is spent on cancer research than other diseases because it’s more exciting for researchers. Cancer research is popular because “anything related to genetics is popular”.
What if there are factors other than genetics which are implicated in development of Cancer, such as viruses (see other thread on Causes of Cancer), environmental toxins? Are too many eggs being put in one basket (the genetics basket) in cancer research and other areas being ignored - for example fairly simple things like more research into whether increased Vitamin D could prevent many breast cancers.
The other point is that the article rightly suggest that there is a huge “cancer industry” (my words) involving researchers, celebrities, the media and fundraisers. Are we getting value for money from all these activities and is cancer becoming preventable and treatable in direct proportion to the amount of funding? If not, why not?
A last thought, which the article doesn’t mention, is what is being done to ensure that drugs licensing and NICE appraisals and recommendations are keeping pace with new developments in cancer research. Why raise huge amounts of money for research it if there isn’t a proper process and funding in place to deliver the results of the research to people who need it?
I sound rather cynical, but I’m not. I did the Moonwalk and do other fundraising stuff, but I avoid wearing blinkers when I do them. I think the questions this article raises are very relevant.
Research and publicity I have always been surprised at the amount of publicity that cancer attracts compared to other diseases. For some reason the media find it more interesting to write about.
One of the reasons for there being more research into cancer is because it is far easier to obtain funding for that. I work in biological sciences, and the two subjects that it is easier to get funding for are cancer, and the environment. There are agencies and governmental departments that you can apply for funding.
The other thing I have been surprised about is that breast cancer attracts a lot of attention, compared with other cancers.
You do not often read about throat cancer, prostate cancer, or ovarian cancer, but let a famous person get breast cancer, and the papers are full of it, about how they are coping, and that they have got the “all clear” after their first visit.
Yes, annoying! I’m glad that there is so much publicity about breast cancer, it certainly seems to be on the increase (or perhaps we’re talking about it more). I do find it rather annoying though that famous people (i.e. Kylie) are given the “all clear” after their first visit. All my friends think now that I’ll be given the “all clear” when treatment finishes but, sadly, it just doesn’t work like that.
cancer research funding Oh how I wish this were true! My nephew, 33 yrs old,got a first B.Sc in biochemistry, and then went into molecular biology for his PH.D. Since then he has been on 2 yr contracts in either Manchester, at Christie’s Hospital (Paterson Institute of Cancer Research) and latterly for Cancer Research Uk in London. His contract finished 2 months ago and he has had to go back to live with his parents in the North East as he couldn’t find an appropriate research job in London, Oxford or Cambridge He has done a lot of research into vaccines and viruses apropos cancer (particularly apoptosis of cells) and today went for an interview with a drug company (in the North East. which was part of ICI) that has been given £150m by an American company for research into vaccines against anthrax and bubonic plague as a result of the chemical warfare threat in the Middle East. Sounds like the worst kind of joke the Americans can inflict on us.Oh they had given this money for cancer research.
My sister and I just despair at the lack of commitment our government gives to our young scientists - my nephew’s commitment is to cancer, having lost his grandfather and uncle to cancer, and now has me with bc. However, he has to live, and is thinking of throwing in the towel and going to work in the City where he can earn megabucks, and then get back into cancer research. What a sorry and hypocritical world we live in when we pay popstars and footballers, never mind useless politicians, obscene amounts of money, yet where is their true value to society compared to my nephew?
Well, that’s me having a few minutes on my soapbox - thanks for listening.
Liz.
Perhaps it’s all underfunded Personally, I think that it’s not so much that breast cancer is overfunded, but that research into other diseases is woefully underfunded.
The reason for the attention into genetics is that there is alot of new info available right now and perhaps some ways of using all the new information.
Yes, genetics is a fad, but it isn’t the first one. Viruses were the fad in cancer research in the 1970s and turned out to explain some cancers, but not most. However, the disease developed from work on cancer was very helpful when it came to AIDS.
I hope, Lizzie, that you nephew gets to stay in research. If he gets the bubonic plague/anthrax vaccine job at least he might learn something he might learn something he could use later for cancer research and at least there would be a vaccine for those diseases which might be useful, say for people who work with cattle in areas where anthrax is a problem.