Because it isn't nearly as important as Instagram, apparently: http://www.evernote.com/shard/s146/sh/eb8c59f9-44b5-48bc-a24...
Why haven't we cured cancer yet?
61–70 of 167 posts
Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?
#62Because "Cancer is Serious Business" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be1ihuZNg84
Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?
#63... Because PhD's can barely feed themselves. ... Because the "smart" people work on Wall Street/for consulting firms. ... Because Facebook acquired Instagram.
This needs some more love. Consider the cycle of academic career: -Grad school for 5-8 years, averaging around 7 for most molecular and cellular biologists. You make $23-28k a year depending on where you live. You steal whatever free food is lying around your department -Post graduation, you obtain a Post-Doc position for ~2 years (if everything goes well). This pays ~40k/year, again varying depending on region. -If…
The difference is people rarely go into academic research for money - it's not just a job, it's a lifestyle choice. If you wanted to do research and receive better compensation you could work in industry or for a government lab - still research but less freedom.
Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?
#64The National Cancer Institute's average yearly budget for cancer research is around $4.9 billion. NFL football revenue? $9 billion. Priorities.
Because the National Cancer Institute is a federally funded program and isn't?
Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
This needs some more love. Consider the cycle of academic career: -Grad school for 5-8 years, averaging around 7 for most molecular and cellular biologists. You make $23-28k a year depending on where you live. You steal whatever free food is lying around your department -Post graduation, you obtain a Post-Doc position for ~2 years (if everything goes well). This pays ~40k/year, again varying depending on region. -If…
The difference is people rarely go into academic research for money - it's not just a job, it's a lifestyle choice. If you wanted to do research and receive better compensation you could work in industry or for a government lab - still research but less freedom.
Sure, but the harsh reality of life often gets in the way of your lifestyle choice.
I've known several post-docs that have a wife and kids...and zero in savings because they only make $40k a year. Not everyone can afford to continue "doing what they love" when they have a family to provide for.
A lot of these people leave academic research to take up industry jobs where they reformulate cholesterol medication or research new ways to cure allergies.
I personally got out of biology because I enjoy software engineering just as much, but one compensates so much more in terms of pay. If I was making an equal salary in biology, there would be a good chance I would still be there trying to solve the world's problems.
So I suppose that's my point. Not everyone has the willpower, option or incentive to stay in a field they would otherwise enjoy working in, simply because of the timescale involved and the meager financial pay.
Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
All this genetic diversity seems daunting at first but I think it is also indicative of something that gives me great hope. Cancer isn't like a virus or pathogen that has evolved to avoid it our immune systems and treatments as it passes from individual. It is a degenerative state of the same system that produces healthy cells and fertile humans. It is genetically very diverse. Part of this is because cancers cells o…
Here's something interesting about a common chemical compound called Dichloroacetic acid (DCA). Big pharma is ignoring it since it can't be patented (because it's so common). Cancer cells change the way they metabolize oxygen in a way that promotes their survival. In laboratory studies of isolated cancer cells grown in tissue culture, DCA restores the original metabolism, and promotes their self-destruction. This has…
Big pharma isn't ignoring it because of the patent issue, they are ignoring it because it doesn't work that well.
They may not be able to get a "composition of matter" patent on it, but they could get a "use" patent on it.
For a great example of a VERY common chemical that big pharma is developing, check out BG-12 from Biogen. It's dimethyl fumarate, something you can buy in ton quantities and most labs have jars of it. They are developing it for MS and it looks quite promising.
http://www.drugs.com/clinical_trials/oral-bg-12-dimethyl-fum...
Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?
#67The National Cancer Institute's average yearly budget for cancer research is around $4.9 billion. NFL football revenue? $9 billion. Priorities.
A minority of NFL revenues come from ticket sales & merchandising combined. Much of it comes from advertising. If you're an effective channel for mass attention, it stands to reason that you're going to be poised to capture huge amounts of money, simply because there's huge amounts of commerce happening. The NFL's revenue is not really a reflection on our priorities. A better comparison would be to other discretionar…
> The NFL's revenue is not really a reflection on our priorities.
Isn't it reasonable to assume that, if costumers had different priorities and seek for science research news more often. Then advertisers would, maybe, consider investing in science research instead of football? If we could, somehow, teach and get people interested in science. Then having your brand name associated with the cure of cancer could be more valuable than having your brand associated with football.
It just seems to me that it's a matter of whose priorities are we talking about. You're not wrong, but I have the impression you and noonespecial are talking about different things.
Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?
#68This is one of the most fascinating and frightening things I have ever read. It really feels like staring cthulhu in the face. TLDR: Breast cancers, for instance, have been shown to harbor at least 1,700 different mutations, but only three of them showed up in at least 10% of patients, with the great majority of them being unique to each patient. The most recent study in Nature discussed above shows that even a singl…
All this genetic diversity seems daunting at first but I think it is also indicative of something that gives me great hope. Cancer isn't like a virus or pathogen that has evolved to avoid it our immune systems and treatments as it passes from individual. It is a degenerative state of the same system that produces healthy cells and fertile humans. It is genetically very diverse. Part of this is because cancers cells o…
Well,
"Cancer isn't like a virus or pathogen that has evolved to avoid it our immune system..." until it start reproducing at a quick rate -then, as the article says "Tumor cells undergo evolution as they grow, so that the cells in them are genetically heterogeneous.".
But another thing to think about is that science based medicine has so far been more or less powerless against degenerative diseases - in general. Our treatments for cancer, heart disease, arthritis and so-forth as basically ad-hoc as contrasted with our treatment of externally-caused disease.
And this isn't surprising given that a degenerative disease is essentially a breakdown in engineering of the body and we essentially don't have a clue how to re-engineer or repair those processes (with many fine exceptions but they are exceptions).
The genetic diversity that the author talks about in cancer is basically present fully functional human beings. The way that different people function is far more different than even the way two different cars work. When human any part of a human being breaks down, we can't in general produce a replacement. Sure, there are advances in understanding the processes involved but these are, again, ad-hoc so far.
Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?
#69Which 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
Also, even if there were only one corporation with a total healthcare monopoly then provided it could charge whatever it wanted it would still be able to make more money by just curing the cancer since it's providing a more valuable service by doing that.
Re: Why haven't we cured cancer yet?
#70The National Cancer Institute's average yearly budget for cancer research is around $4.9 billion. NFL football revenue? $9 billion. Priorities.
As radu_floricica astutely wrote above
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3818395
Cancer research... but you need to also factor in cancer treatment costs.