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

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#21

Post by dailyrorschach » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 5:46 PM UTC

Craiggybear wrote: post #5

Because, like AI, molecular biology is complicated and there are no quick hacks . Some things are meant to take time and be right. First time. Survival rates are spectacularly better than they were fifteen or twenty years ago and they are getting better all the time. Also there is no one type of lung cancer, brain tumour or bladder or bowel cancer either. There are many different types. Half the battle is identifying…

I think it's also important to note that our understanding of molecular biology while impressive is still so incomplete and there is much to learn.

This is a kind of cool Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_molecular_biology

But the discipline isn't even 100 years old yet, and really only in the last couple of decades have we been able to have technology to really take advantage of isolation. We have learned so much about modern medicine, but have so much more to go.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#22

Post by tptacek » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 5:48 PM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #14

radikalus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Random "fact" 1. Random "fact" 2. Priorities.

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.

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.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#23

Post by mistercow » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 5:48 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #7

noonespecial wrote: post #3

The National Cancer Institute's average yearly budget for cancer research is around $4.9 billion. NFL football revenue? $9 billion. Priorities.

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

Who said that you can't have a little fun? It's just pretty weird to spend more on football than on cancer research.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#24

Post by viraptor » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 5:50 PM UTC

siculars wrote: post #2

... Because PhD's can barely feed themselves. ... Because the "smart" people work on Wall Street/for consulting firms. ... Because Facebook acquired Instagram.

1) is simply not true everywhere. I'm sure it varies depending on a country, but I know PhDs in a number of fields and all of them are doing at least "ok" financially.

I'd like to see any kind of proof of 3)... it may be actually the opposite, because it shows that if market has enough money for a dotcom bubble 2.0, some of the transaction value is likely to fuel research to some extent (via taxes, etc.). Good economy is good for many people. (simplified, but true to some extent)

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#25

Post by joeycfan » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 5:50 PM UTC

It's right around the corner. Also limb re-growing and other miracles.

All the fruit of AIDS research.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#26

Post by mistercow » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 5:54 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #22

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.

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.

I agree that it's unlikely that medical research is less well funded than sports. I do think it's plausible that "critical" medical research (excluding ailments like small-penis and spring allergies) is less well funded than sports, for some reasonable definition of "critical", but I'd be unwilling to put any money one way or the other without doing a bit more research.

I will say, however, that pharmaceutical companies put a tremendous amount of money into researching and marketing treatments for common minor ailments.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#27

Post by luriel » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 5:56 PM UTC

theorique wrote: post #8

noonespecial wrote: post #3

The National Cancer Institute's average yearly budget for cancer research is around $4.9 billion. NFL football revenue? $9 billion. Priorities.

Cancer research is a lot quieter and less entertaining than a football game.

I for one find cancer research much more fascinating, there are always new surprises and twists to learn and discover. With a football game, we already know the rules, the outcomes are not all that diverse, and people have been playing the same kind of game for ages, I get bored really fast.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#28

Post by noonespecial » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 5:56 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #22

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.

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.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#29

Post by tptacek » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 5:58 PM UTC

mistercow wrote: post #26

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.

I agree that it's unlikely that medical research is less well funded than sports. I do think it's plausible that "critical" medical research (excluding ailments like small-penis and spring allergies) is less well funded than sports, for some reasonable definition of "critical", but I'd be unwilling to put any money one way or the other without doing a bit more research. I will say, however, that pharmaceutical compan…

When you say "better funded than sports", you're implicating advertising. But advertising revenue is in part of function of the broader economy. F-500s don't buy Super Bowl ads because they love football.

Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?

#30

Post by jbondeson » Mon, Apr 09, 2012, 6:02 PM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #14

radikalus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Random "fact" 1. Random "fact" 2. Priorities.

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 buy all sorts of things, who gets to decide what spending is "right" and what's "wrong?"