Page 1 of 1

Re: Cancer war, no progress? [URL]

Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:29 pm
by art_l_j_PlanetAMD64
Adam A. Wanderer wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/boomi ... h_20131105

After decades, and billions of dollars, what is the problem with the lack of progress?
Interesting article.

Now, this is just my own personal opinion on the subject, but the article referenced above seems to be just a bit sensationalized, as many (most?) newspaper and TV news articles seem to be, nowadays. Perhaps (again, in my opinion) this is intended to get more "eyeballs" glued to the TV, or to sell more newspapers.

Yes, in any large, expensive, multi-generational scientific research project, there will be "scammers", as well as paths taken that, with the benefit of [20-20] hindsight, might have been better not taken.

No matter how good (or poor) the present-day cancer treatments are, they will not save every single person suffering from cancer.

And (in my opinion, and not specifically referring to the above article) it also seems more than a bit unfair and illogical, to lump together all the different diseases of the body that we call by the generic name of "cancer", and then to imply that only very poor progress has been made, in part because someone the author knows (directly or indirectly) was not "saved" by the present-day cancer treatments and therapies.

My final opinion about this topic, is that the "War on Cancer" waged by the NIH and others, should perhaps be looked at in the same way that we look at DARPA.

DARPA spends a lot of money on what some might call "crazy blue-sky projects", which can be (and sometimes are) attacked as a big waste of money. But when "you" start out on a very large, ill-defined research project, it may be difficult to initially "separate the wheat from the chaff".

Just imagine how different our world would be, if DARPA had not spent the money and done the research for (link):
DARPA supported the evolution of the ARPANET (the first wide-area packet switching network), Packet Radio Network, Packet Satellite Network and ultimately, the Internet and research in the artificial intelligence fields of speech recognition and signal processing, including parts of Shakey the robot.[10] DARPA also funded the development of the Douglas Engelbart's NLS computer system and The Mother of All Demos; and the Aspen Movie Map, which was probably the first hypermedia system and an important precursor of virtual reality.

Re: Cancer war, no progress? [URL]

Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:30 pm
by Jesse_V
art_l_j_PlanetAMD64 makes some good points there.

I think progress is being made. It's a tough challenge, and a lot of money is indeed being wasted.
Part of the problem is accuracy in diagnosis. That's where cool things like IBM Watson come in: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... or/viewall

Re: Cancer war, no progress? [URL]

Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:58 pm
by 7im
Define lack of progress? There are a 100s of types of cancers, some much more difficult to diagnose and treat.

I wouldn't call it wasted money, but they should focus earlier detection to increase survivability, rather than draconian treatments.

Re: Cancer war, no progress? [URL]

Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 6:17 pm
by PlayLoud
My fear is that even if we are someday reasonably able to treat most forms of cancer, it will not be affordable. These companies that charge thousands for a single shot... I can't even continue my thought.

Re: Cancer war, no progress? [URL]

Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:42 pm
by Joe_H
PlayLoud wrote:My fear is that even if we are someday reasonably able to treat most forms of cancer, it will not be affordable. These companies that charge thousands for a single shot... I can't even continue my thought.
How is that any different than current treatments? I am all too aware of what is charged for some cancer treatments having gone through a year of it in 2010. There were a number of drugs on my bills that went for that kind of price.

Re: Cancer war, no progress? [URL]

Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:55 pm
by PlayLoud
Joe_H wrote:
PlayLoud wrote:My fear is that even if we are someday reasonably able to treat most forms of cancer, it will not be affordable. These companies that charge thousands for a single shot... I can't even continue my thought.
How is that any different than current treatments? I am all too aware of what is charged for some cancer treatments having gone through a year of it in 2010. There were a number of drugs on my bills that went for that kind of price.
Not saying it is any different now. Didn't mean to imply that.