Cancer seems to be on every cover this week, due to the unfortunate recurrences of the illness for two brave people in the political arena, Elizabeth Edwards and Tony Snow. If there is any good that will come out of this, it is that people are stepping back and evaluating where billions of dollars of cancer research has gotten us. Many salient questions are being asked. Here's just a sample from the Sunday Times:
"Why does [recurrence] still happen?"
"Has the profit motive gotten in the way of finding a cure for cancer or better treatment?"
"What if the best treatments are the cheapest?"
"Why don't we have more to show for this generous effort?"
One of the most interesting questions is asked by Susan Love, president and medical director of the Susan Love Research Foundation: "Why do we lack new approaches?" The answer is not pretty. She says that experienced clinicians are shut out of research because "it is difficult to obtain a grant to do research if you haven't spent your career in the laboratory." She also criticizes a peer review system that stifles innovation. According to Love, "wild hunches" that might lead to a breakthrough if pursued are ignored because no one wants to make a poor investment.
The budget of the National Cancer Institute has increased to $4.8 billion, and private donations have likewise increased. Bravo, but it's time to rethink our approach, not just to cancer research, but to cancer research funding. If risk-averse strategies are not getting us results, it's time for us to invest in innovative strategies. In the fight against cancer, results cannot come soon enough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment