Let me start by saying that I am not a doctor, I am not a cancer researcher or claim to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination. I simply read a bit about the topic, and decided to try and start a conversation about cancer research.
Many of my facts, numbers and references can be referenced in this month’s issue of Wired.
I guess the statement that sums up this entire argument is “If we find cancer early, 90 percent survive. If we find cancer late, 10 percent survive.”
So why are we investing billions of dollars in a cure? Is it noble? Absolutely! But is it the right place to be investing that money? 566,000 people die each year from cancer but according to recent statistics 1-3 people will develop some form of cancer in their lifetime – That’s 120 million people! If we find the cancer early, in stage I, that 566,000 number will shrink dramatically, without a cure!
The National Cancer Institute spends just 8 percent of its research funds on early detection. Why is this? Why are we spending so little on the best possible way to find and fix the cancer?
Image provided by Wired.com
Of course there are some very important factors that must be recognized…
- Prostate cancer, for example, can be easily detected early – But the problem is, determining whether medical intervention is necessary
- Some cancers show no symptoms, and are very very difficult to detect early in stage I
- Lung cancer, for example, are mostly only detected in late stages. Research money has to go here.
Of course, my post is a bit simplistic – Cancer is very complex. I suggest reading the full article at Wired.com
But my question is this – Why can’t more money and grants be made available for early detection? If we KNOW that there is a 90% survival rate for detection in stage I, and a 10% survival rate in state IV, why invest 90% of our money into a 10% chance? If we make significant progress with early detection, then the number of deaths related to cancer each year will go down.