The Cancer Research Economics Thread

Well, billionaires contract and die from cancer, so....

 

Yes. The incentive is there because the company that does find the cure will be filthy rich. Everyone that doesn't would then be out work. So everyone has motivation to find the cure.

Beyond that, scientists generally aren't driven nearly as much by money as other people. If you work for a University or non-profit, you're probably not getting paid nearly as much as you could in the private sector, so different organizations may have different motivations and types of employees.

 

Knowing many of the different ways that various cancers are treated and managed, I would say that it is my opinion that there is not a cure that is being withheld from the general public. Yes, companies might lose money out of it, but I think if there were ever a cure, it would not be a one time shot. There would still be a lot of money to be made in followup care and maintenance.

What most of the general public does not realize is that cancer is not just one disease. It is a broad blanket term thrown over a huge range of similar diseases. I don't know if there would ever be one cure that just kills off every type of cancer.

I do agree with the get tested early and often theory, though. Those cancers that we have made the most progress in treating and eradicating are the ones that we've developed sensitive and specific testing for.

MD Anderson just pledged a TON of money into private research of early detection testing and treatments of many of the more common and more deadly cancers, too. I believe its a couple billion dollars. Can't remember completely. I think they're testing diseases like cancers of the lung, cervix, pancreas(maybe?), etc.

 

Plenty of PhDs left for Wall Street - helping to model derivatives and such.

 

Absolutely - but those generally aren't the ones that are committing years of their life to find a cure to cancer.

 

I don't think there will ever be a "cure" for cancer as it is a mutation in the cells. We might be able to create machines or bio machines that can target and kill these cells. The 2nd issue since people are living so much longer that there is is a higher probability that cell division will cause a mutation since the cells divide more. Also as we age the immune system gets worse and can't kill of those mutated cells.

Also the kind of people wall street hires are math, engineering, physics phds. There is a lot less to memorize in math. I don't know if wall street hires bio phds.

 

It doesn't matter if a cure is found if sources aren't named.

Let's throw one out there:

GMO crops is contributing to cancer rates per this study:
rat photos:

Spoiler

study:

Spoiler

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

Why would the FDA allow GMOs in the food supply? Oh, that's right, the FDA is a revolving door for the big Ag companies like Wall St is of Big Bank execs:

Spoiler

But, won't Obama help the middle class? I mean...he passed Obamacare!

Spoiler

Cancer is a disease state and can't be cured until the toxins are eliminated from the enviornment: food is a big source. Isn't it ironic how many people are on food stamps and that these people can only afford the type of food that is highly subsidized and loaded with GMO food?

Spoiler

Cancer isn't going anywhere. Modern medicine may be advancing but environmental factors contributing to this state are getting worse.

 

"Seralini et al. (2012) claim to have found evidence for the long term toxicity of roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (GMM). Using one-tailed Fishers exact test we show that there is no statistically significant increase in mortality rates or the number of tumors in rats fed GMM compared to control groups in the original data."

"This article attracted great attention within the scientific and regulatory community. Substantial gaps in the study design, fundamental flaws in the data analysis and erroneous interpretation of results have been pointed out by individual scientists and administration bodies. Upon request by the European Commission, the European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA) reviewed the study and concluded that the design, reporting and analysis of the study as presented in Food and Chemical Toxicology are inadequate and that this contribution is of insufficient scientific quality to be relevant in the safety assessment process (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004.htm)."

The study you cited does not actually demonstrate any correlation between GMO/insecticide consumption and morbidity/mortality.

 

Weren't we talking about cancer?

 

There is none, zero, scientific link between GMO* foods and cancer or any health risk whatsoever. Nothing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that has stood up.

Mark Lynas recants on genetically modified foods. (this is last week.)
From the article: "What led to his change of heart? He started studying the science."

There are plenty of reasons to go after Monsanto, but right now GMOs aren't one of them. They are a black cat, in terms of the scientific proof that they can cause any harm.

* = we've been genetically modifying foods, through a variety of techniques, since the dawn of agriculture in the fertile crescent. #truth

Sorry for derail, but I didn't start the GMO stuff. Have other thoughts on cancer, as I live with a cancer researcher.

 

Perhaps because the study I posted a link to is the FIRST EVER LONG TERM STUDY of GMO...? Most other *studies are no more than 90 days in length.


*From:

http://civileats.com/2012/09/20/first-ever-long-term-stud-on-gmo-foods-should-have-you-worried/

Maybe to be successful in this whole battle, more money should be spent on the prevention studies vs the treatment studies. That's my point.

 

The debate about GMOs harkens back to what it was probably like debating potatoes way back.

those strange foreign foods.

Cancer research is huge, because it and HIV/AIDS are the last frontier of brand pharma companies looking for patents to fill out. While it might not make sense for the industry as a whole to develop medications such as these from a purely economic point of view, it makes a hell of a lot of sense for a biotech or an individual pharma company to get something done. Adding an exclusive cancer "cure" to a portfolio is probably the largest incentive you could give to brand pharma companies scrambling past the patent cliff.

 

Here we totally agree, but the GMO focus from some zealots is, IMHO, sad and totally misplaced. You have people still drinking water out of plastic bottles who avoid GMO at their local whole foods. Just... unreal.

My wife studies very basic cell division in a very high-faluting well-recognized academic lab. From what I understand, cancer is a very natural occurrence in cell division -- as others have said, it's a mutation of sorts, where the cell division goes wrong, and a cancer cell results. Basically, if you live long enough, you will have cancer.

And I've attended some very good talks about the state-of-the-art research. It is depressing, (and I applaud RR for starting this thread.) It looks as though there are literally thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of pathways to developing cancer, each somewhat unique.

I have a good friend who is dying of cancer right now, and she ended up with two very different forms at the same time (rare), but the doctors said there was just no way to treat it. "Whatever chemo we use on one would not affect the other one, and vice versa." Something like that.

So even though there are so many different ways to get cancer, I personally believe prevention has got to be at least half the battle. There are tons of environmental/lifestyle issues involved in cancer risk, as well as genetic factors.

The money issue is pretty tricky. I know there is a crap-load of federal money (e.g. through the NIH), but there are a ton of private donations as well, to say nothing of the biotech industry. But so far, I think anyone in the field would agree it has not been a good return on investment so far.

As far as the statistics of how many people contract cancer, I think it's worse than the numbers in the O.P. From what I understand, one in two Americans that live past 65 or so will face some kind of cancer in their lifetime. I could be wrong about that.

 

You're correct here. DNA translation/transcription process is thrown off. When the dna strands are thrown off, an abnormal cell is borne. What needs to be studied more is what environmental factors that are man made & avoidable are contributing to this cellular process being disrupted. This is a large & difficult issue because every person's genetic predisposition to different diseases will be hard to nail down & thus, there will never be one cure.

The GMO argument I believe is a two-fold one by the zealous. One: why should one company dominate the planted seeds market through patents & the pesticides the seeds can handle...essentially leading to a food monopoly being facilitated with the help of the govt through subsidies without sufficient long term clinical trials? Two, are the pesticides carried by the GMO foods leading to toxicity within the cells & contributing to a disruption in the cells ability to fix & regulate itself? The study I posted is important because it is the first study beyond 90 days to study chemical toxicity from GMO food. The period is 2 years and the tumor growth, kidney, reproductive & liver issues are staggering against the control group. That's worth looking into.

Spoiler

The Study again:
http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

It is not hard to imagine why cigarettes are an easy culprit in the cancer conversation. They obviously contain toxic chemicals & when the body is exposed over an extended period of time boom...lung cancer. Just like asbestos. A modern society is curing diseases that would kill somebody back in the 1800s in their 30's but new problems are arising. A cure can be found but it must come with a comitment that perhaps a cure for this issue of which is really 100+ diseases may not come exclusively from bio science like cures & advances to this point & is in fact an overhaul of the way society lives. Many companies have a stake in keeping the status quo though, that is certain. I remain open minded on all information on the issue.

 

I don't know either way about GMO foods, but I think Classic's larger point is sound. We've made a lot of carcinogens for ourselves, and then try to treat the cancers that develop instead of eliminating the sources. That's not easy to do, but I look out at the horizon in houston and see the gray band of pollution between the ground and the blue sky and say no wonder we're dying of cancer. If it's not the food, it's the air, or the magnetic fields, or the medicines, or the water.

 

They won't be rich. We know it won't be kept from the masses just because it's value is really astronomical.

I don't think it is the scientists that lack motivation. I think the pharmecuetical companies try to create barriers to a cure. I feel this way moreso about HIV.

 

Certainly possible. I'm not even remotely a scientist. But couldn't it just be that since people in the West aren't dying of other stuff, they just die of cancer since it's an extremely difficult to cure disease?