Why haven't we cured cancer yet? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#31

Post by elchief » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 6:03 PM UTC

We haven't cured a lot of things. Well, we've cured lots of small things, but few of the doozies.

A baldness cure has been ten years away for the last thirty years. No cure for blindness, AIDS, lost limbs. Remember the blue denim dye that killed cancer? What happened to it?

If something is "ten years away", it means we simply don't know how to do it, we are just hoping for someone else to come up with the tech to solve it for us. Even if it's "five years away", it's suspect. Why not just release it now? Oh, because it doesn't work. I'll believe something if it's being currently tested on monkeys.

We simply don't have the technology yet to solve these problems. These problems won't likely be solved in medicine, but in another field that discovers the solution accidentally, likely in nano or AI/statistics.

If you want to speed things along, make sure the government is dropping lots of coin in R&D in many NEW or PROMISING fields, not just medicine. Encourage intellectual property rights for innovative firms that do real R&D, and not just relabel their old products. Encourage your smart friend to go into bio-stats and not quantitative finance.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#32

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 6:05 PM UTC

Fascinating paper on returns on cancer research out of the NBER argues that for about $300 billion in cancer research expenditures from 1988 to 2000 the US created 23 million life-years worth, in aggregate, about $1.9 trillion [1]. That comes to about a 52% smoothed return. Pretty good given that the S&P 500 grew at about 14.6% over the same period (though if similarly smoothed yielded about 42%).

[1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w15574.pdf?new_window=1

[2] http://quicktake.morningstar.com/index/IndexCharts.aspx?Coun...

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#33

Post by krschultz » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 6:06 PM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #28

tptacek wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you factor advertising out of the NFL, NBA, and MLB, I'm not convinced that all three together outstrip medical research. Pfizer alone has an R&D budget higher than the NCI. I really don't think this is a valid comparison you're making.

Don't forget the other costs of "moneyball" like giant stadiums every 10 years or so in every major city reorganizing the entire downtown as they are built. Mostly I agree with your above point about discretionary government spending though, but it would have been pretty low hanging fruit to just say (once again) that the money spent saving us from terrorists would save a lot more of us from cancer.

You are really driving down a completely unrelated road here.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#34

Post by officialchicken » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 6:07 PM UTC

Which business model do you prefer - ongoing revenue or one-time payment?

There's more money to be made by treating the symptoms than there is providing a cure. Anyone you know with a chronic disease will tell you that since their diagnosis, the price of everything related to the condition has gone up dramatically... cancer, ADD, diabetes, asthma, etc.

I wonder what ad-supported pharmacology business model would be like? Medicaid meets Madison Ave.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#35

Post by mindcruzer » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 6:08 PM UTC

Rhapso wrote: post #11

We can never "cure" cancer. We might be able to save most individuals from dying from it some day but cancer is just a mutation that makes a cell's behavior damaging/lethal to the host body. The only way to prevent "bad" mutation (because there is no sure way to discern 'bad' from any other mutation) is to stop mutation all together, and even if there way a way to do this (removal of radiation does not stop transcrip…

There are no absolutes in science.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#36

Post by mindcruzer » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 6:11 PM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #19

avgarrison wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that we should not allow such a thing if it existed. I think humans are a bit past the need for biological evolution. Technology can provide us with the ability to adapt to new challenges and environments, and can do so much more quickly.

Also, plenty of biological evolution can happen in the absence of mutation.

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. Evolution is simply the changing of allele frequencies over time, which can certainly happen in the absence of mutation. Although, I don't know that I would say "plenty" of evolution can happen without mutations, but I guess that depends on what you think "plenty" is.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#37

Post by Palomides » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 6:13 PM UTC

officialchicken wrote: post #34

Which business model do you prefer - ongoing revenue or one-time payment? There's more money to be made by treating the symptoms than there is providing a cure. Anyone you know with a chronic disease will tell you that since their diagnosis, the price of everything related to the condition has gone up dramatically... cancer, ADD, diabetes, asthma, etc. I wonder what ad-supported pharmacology business model would be l…

any corporation with a cure would have an immense advantage over any competitors

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#38

Post by noonespecial » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 6:14 PM UTC

jbondeson wrote: post #30

noonespecial wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I really wanted to say was that its quite likely that society spends more (much more) on sports entertainment than medical research. Perhaps not wrong. Interesting though.

What's the point in singling out sports entertainment? Apple cleared $100bb predominately selling consumer electronics, should everyone who bought an iPad feel bad for not donating that $600 to cancer research? Facebook just threw a billion around on a photo sharing company. Microsoft just threw a billion so it could acquire some more patent ammunition. Everyday billions and billions of dollars are thrown around to b…

Heh.. Perhaps you might use an apple computer to help cure cancer and you probably wouldn't use a football?

>who gets to decide what spending is "right" and what's "wrong?"

None. Noone. Perhaps not wrong. Interesting though.

Sorry guys, guess I kind of ran this one right off the rails. We underspend on medical research proportionally. That was all. I just tried to pick something a little more interesting than the TSA to joust at this time.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#39

Post by goblin89 » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 6:14 PM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #13

maratd wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of living if you can't have a little fun? Living merely for the sake of living is pointless.

Its odd. I was quite curious to float this opinion in this crowd. It is of course, wildly unpopular among the non-geeks in my "regular" life. I wondered if it would also be so here. Affirmative. It always seemed to me that we should "take care of our business" first, and then play later. To see these numbers backwards (IMHO) struck me as a childish "play first " attitude. I wouldn't go so far as to say "cancel sports…

> a shift in priorities would be refreshing.

Agree, but as tptacek pointed out, there's a lot of commerce happening in football. If majority will shift their concerns to health problems, then the commerce will be happening there. Not sure if it would be necessarily a good thing, and it likely would require strict regulation.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#40

Post by officialchicken » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 6:16 PM UTC

elchief wrote: post #31

We haven't cured a lot of things. Well, we've cured lots of small things, but few of the doozies. A baldness cure has been ten years away for the last thirty years. No cure for blindness, AIDS, lost limbs. Remember the blue denim dye that killed cancer? What happened to it? If something is "ten years away", it means we simply don't know how to do it, we are just hoping for someone else to come up with the tech to sol…

I totally agree, but it doesn't explain why there are so many treatments not available in the U.S., but available elsewhere. Islet cell graphs, for example.

Personally, I'd encourage EVERYONE with a chronic disease to become a quant, so that they may live long and healthy lives (after leaving finance).