…and this is a 
Support cancer research now!
Category: Science
Posted on: June 12, 2008 12:09 PM, by PZ Myers
This is my sister-in-law, Karen Myers — mother to 3, shy but always cheerful, and with a wonderful laugh that you were sure to hear any time you were with her. You would have liked her if you'd known her…unfortunately, she was slowly eaten alive by an implacable melanoma several years ago. It doesn't matter what kind of person you are; lots of good people — and you probably have known some yourself — are killed by cancer every year.
About 20 years ago, I was funded by a cancer training grant which required me to experience a fair amount of clinical training in oncology. It is not one of my happiest memories. What I saw were lots of dying people, in pain, with treatments that caused more pain — or were palliative because the patient was expected to die. Pediatric oncology was the worst, because they were dying children. I'm afraid my training convinced me to run screaming from anything clinical.
So last week, I met Beth Villavicencio, who told me she was a pediatric oncologist. The first words out of my mouth were something like, "That's funny — you don't look depressed or suicidal." And she wasn't. She looked awfully happy for someone who works with critically ill kids … so she turned me around 180°. She wasn't miserable, because people bring dying kids to her and she saves them — she has a job where she is literally taking people who would be dying otherwise and she makes them healthy again with excellent success rates, which sounds like something that would make anyone cheerful.
How does she do that? With science. She sent me a whole stack of references on the amazing progress that has been made over the last several decades, thanks to clinical trials and evidence based medicine. Here's one picture that says it all.
Those are survivorship curves for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. When the lines are plunging downwards, that means kids are dying like flies; when the lines flatten out horizontally, that means no kids are dying. Each line has a date for when the survival was measured. Look at the mid-1960s, the yellow line: 90% of the kids diagnosed with ALL would die within five years. But then look at the other curves — in the 1970s, 64% would die; in the early 80s, about half; in the late 80s, about 30%; in the 90s, about 20%; and now, about 10%. What's going on?
We haven't been evolving ALL-resistant kids. The medicine has been getting better. Every percentage point that those lines are pushed upwards is the outcome of hard work and clinical testing of new drugs and protocols and therapies and diagnostic tools. That's impressive. This is how we progress.
You will sometimes hear people claim that the answer is found in the natural healing power of the body, and that doctors don't really do anything but let nature do all the work (or worse, that treatments for cancer poison people and hinder nature's healing power). They may also say that children are just especially tough and healthy, so pediatric cancers are relatively easy…but look at the data. When doctors don't have effective treatments and don't intervene, we get those yellow lines from the 1960s. We get 90%+ survival when doctors can exercise their hard-earned knowledge.
You want happy stories? Read this account of one of Beth's patients.
It's not just children's cancers, either. If we want to cure adult cancers, like the melanoma that killed Karen, don't look to magic, or wishful thinking, or ancient shamanistic wisdom, or prayer — we've had those for millennia, and they do nothing. What we need is more research, more doctors, more clinical trials, and more money. Unfortunately, this is what the money looks like.
It's been drying up. Researchers are spending more time struggling to get basic funding and less time doing the work that saves lives, and more often than not, they aren't getting funded. Often, too, the researchers who are getting screwed are the new researchers, the ones who don't have established labs right now, which means we are short-sightedly demolishing our future research infrastructure. Good luck with that, America!
So what can we do?
We must push our politicians to invest in science, and to do so sensibly. It seems that the news nowadays is full of politicians wasting their efforts on naturopathy, homeopathy, "alternative" medicine, creationism, and other pointless exercises in pandering to useless ideological feel-good nonsense. Don't put up with it! This is your life and health on the line, and the life and health of people you love — why are they frittering away your future on quackery? Apply the electoral pressure.
Ideally, we'd have strong, well-funded federal agencies managing the money; think of places like NIH and NSF as repositories of informed experts who disburse money rationally (usually) to address specific, important questions by qualified scientists. The first priority should be to bolster these institutions.
Alternatively, we can recruit more private donations. This has the danger that the money is more likely to go to politically prominent causes (although, to be realistic, NIH and NSF do the same thing), but in these lean times it's what research needs. Think of it as like insurance — no, it's better than insurance. You could sock away money and have a million dollars on hand when a catastrophic illness strikes, but it will do you no good if the doctors don't have the tools to treat you at any cost; invest now to make it more likely that effective treatments will be available when you need them.
Donate to the American Cancer Society. One common event is the Relay for Life, a way for people to get together as a community and raise money for cancer research. Look for Relay events locally — they're all across the country — organize one yourself, or you can donate to my family's cause, the Relay for Life for Karen Myers, which is organized by her daughter, Rachael.
Get out there and support something that works!
Medicine & Health
Comments
Thanks for this, PZ. I suspect nearly all of us have relatives and/or friends that have had to deal with a cancer. Father (OK) and best friend (dead) for me. In 1971, Nixon (not my favorite guy) declared a War on Cancer; in 2001 Shrub (ditto!) declared a War on Terror. I know which one I think is more important.
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | June 12, 2008 12:20 PM
I had the same conversation with my brother, a pediatric surgeon. He has a similar attitude. He doesn't see the kids unless they are in dire straits to begin with, so he focuses on the one he fixes, not the ones that he couldn't.
Posted by: bill r | June 12, 2008 12:24 PM
But I thought science leads you to killing people, isn't that what Ben Stein said?
Thanks for this, PZ. It steels my resolve as a scientist not only to keep doing research, but also to keep fighting anti-intellectual nonsense.
Posted by: James F | June 12, 2008 12:25 PM
Bam! Right on the head, PZ. I work as a medical geographer in the surveillance branch of my provincial cancer board and the survival curves we produce show the incredible effects of new medical interventions as they're implemented. Whether such interventions are preventative, such as wide-ranging screening programs, or innovations in treatment, such as new medications, the numbers show that science works.
As an aside and a salvo against the current medieval romanticism of some of the religiots we get here, I ask: how come cancer survival has increased so dramatically since prayer was taken out of schools, huh?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 12, 2008 12:28 PM
Great post, PZ.
Posted by: Ric | June 12, 2008 12:43 PM
Having researched the American Cancer Society and other umbrella organizations I recommend picking your own research institution and donating directly.
MD Anderson is awesome if you like Texas Medicine.
ACS does not have a great track record for dollars donated getting into research, unless they changed their act recently.
Posted by: scooter | June 12, 2008 12:45 PM
It's odd that the funding goes into a freefall in 2003. What could possibly have happened in '03 to suck up so much money that grants aren't getting fullfilled as much? I wonder...
Posted by: FutureMD | June 12, 2008 12:46 PM
I know that we have made immense progress in cancer survival rates, but those two graphs just blew me away. We laugh and joke about the intelligence of the general population but I can't believe that if more people saw these graphs (with PZ's wondefully clear explanation) that there would be nearly as much dispute about the value of evidence based medicine. Rather than just telling people verbally that survival rates are improving, maybe showing them graphically would make more sense. I know not everyone is "visually oriented", but these kinds of graphs are just so clear. I guess my point is that I think there isn't enough popularization of just how much progress has actually been made in treating cancer, and maybe if that was emphasized a little more people would be more generous in funding knowing that their money is going to be effective.
and now for something completely different (but not really), those graphs really illustrate where the magic "5 year" target comes from statistically, but biologically why is it 5 years?
Posted by: SteveM | June 12, 2008 12:46 PM
Although I can't contribute monetarily, I *do* support cancer research in my own way & encourage others to participate as well (although I'd suspect that if you are reading this blog, you probably do so already).
I have one desktop machine running Stanford University's Folding@Home program 24/7. Its research will be useful in finding causes, and treatments for, certain cancers, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, and a number of other debilitating diseases or conditions.
I have a second machine running the IBM-funded World Community Grid, also 24/7. Although the World Community Grid currently supports other very worthy applications, one of their projects is dedicated to cancer research. (Other projects include finding effective drugs for AIDS and Dengue fever. You can participate in as many or as few projects as you like.)
I'd encourage anyone who isn't running one of these programs to go immediately to either (or both) sites and participate right away. Every little bit helps a great deal.
Posted by: Eric | June 12, 2008 12:47 PM
My family's small part: participating in the Pan-Mass Challenge.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | June 12, 2008 12:48 PM
I wrote a similarly themed post recently.
Its all the efforts of people through the history of man that has produced every positive aspect our of our civilization.
Thank us.
Posted by: techskeptic | June 12, 2008 12:50 PM
I think a lot of times common laypeople like me look to maybe the previous decade or two when trying to assess scientific advancements. I don't know why we do that. Perhaps we just expect immediate results or whatnots. But the thing is, if you look back fifty years, the number of advancements and achievements are staggering.
It gives me some hope for the future. But, you're right. The accomplishments of science don't spring from nothing, and these cures and treatments aren't willed into existence at the snap of anyone's fingers. They take time. They take money. And they take science. When I give money to support research, I realize that I won't see an immediate return on my charity, and I don't need to, but I will help to save a life somewhere down the line. Ten, twenty, a thousand years doesn't matter.
Posted by: Dan | June 12, 2008 12:53 PM
Great post. One question: Did your sister-in-law marry someone with your same last name?
Posted by: FishyFred | June 12, 2008 12:55 PM
I'd like to add that I think these would almost be better choices for xkcd to illustrate his "Science, it works ..." cartoon.
Posted by: SteveM | June 12, 2008 12:56 PM
Actually, that's just part of it. The other part of it is labs like mine. I have my first R01, but it's ending in a couple of years. The first critical step in a research career is getting your first R01. The second is renewing it for the first time. The second step, known as competitive renewal, is also becoming increasingly difficult, meaning that young investigators who have had enough success to get their first grant are now having a lot of difficulty continuing--even to the point of having to close their labs. I've been sweating the renewal ever since I got my first R01, and now I am not in the least bit confident that I'll be able to renew it when I have to apply for my first competitive renewal in the fall of 2009.
Posted by: Orac | June 12, 2008 12:58 PM
Great post. One question: Did your sister-in-law marry someone with your same last name?
Like maybe his brother?
Posted by: SteveM | June 12, 2008 12:58 PM
Jeff-- Not to be arrogant, but were working on a revolutionary idea for cancer therapy.
Submit our proposal-- comes back with no complaints, glowing reviews. Didnt get funded.
Resubmitted-- comes back with no complaints, glowing reviews. Didnt get funded.
Resubmitted (third try is your last try)-- we win the RO1. Funding for 5 years... until they pulled funding for our 4th year.
Does that answer your Q?
Posted by: ERV | June 12, 2008 12:59 PM
Correlation doesn't mean causation. Just because we learn more about stuff and actually apply that knowledge to try and solve problems doesn't mean....ah hell, I can't do the sarcasm.
I hate that fucking disease. Thanks for this PZ.
Posted by: Alex | June 12, 2008 1:00 PM
Ugh, 'pulled funding for our 5th year'.
Posted by: ERV | June 12, 2008 1:00 PM
PZ: Please
1. Gimme the sources for those graphs. I want to reproduce them for my kids' school's next ACS event.
2. Comment on comment on comment #6.
Posted by: Adam | June 12, 2008 1:03 PM
Gosh, I wonder which of the two major (oh hell, let's include Bob Barr and Ron Paul) sorry, FOUR major presidential candidates might be receptive to reversing the obvious decline in cancer research funding.
Let's think ... think ... think ... hmmm ... I wonder ...
Ponder ponder ponder ...
Well, if it still isn't blatantly obvious to you, I urge you to write their campaigns and read their position papers and find out. And then vote for that person.
Whoever they may be. Gosh, I wonder who it will be?
Posted by: Charles Martin | June 12, 2008 1:08 PM
PZ, thank you for brightening my perspective on the state of cancer treatment. For a while now, I've been meaning to include a contribution to cancer research in my yearly budget and this seems like the perfect time to do it.
One question about the last chart though: It shows that the percentage of the R01 applications to the NIH that are funded has dropped significantly between 2003-2005. This may mean that the NIH's budget has shrunk (as you seem to imply) but may also mean that the number of applications has gone up or that fewer applications have been approved for larger grants (like the one my job is being funded by).
Do you have any chart that would better illustrate which of these is the case?
I also seem to recall that the budgets of both the NIH and the NSF were increased by a couple of hundred million recently.
Of course, I am in no way implying that there is no need for more contributions. Just wanted to clarify...
Posted by: agg | June 12, 2008 1:10 PM
I know the coffee enema as cure for cancer crowd really well. They will look at your graphs and say, "See, survival rates go up as funding goes down."
Posted by: midwifetoad | June 12, 2008 1:11 PM
Disease**s** Alex. Not all cancers are caused by the same things, or are effectively treated with the same techniques and medications, which is something else that the average person on the street just doesn't get.
Posted by: Kagehi | June 12, 2008 1:14 PM
ERV (#17)
Not really but I did go take a look at the NIH website which does give significantly more detail. It appears that total funding was increasing through 2005 and then decreased in both 2006 and 2007. The big falloff in the percentage chart in 2004 and 2005 appears to be due to a significant increase in the number of applications, a decrease in the number of awards, and an increase in the average amount awarded.Posted by: Jeff Alexander | June 12, 2008 1:15 PM
I've seen many good researchers missing the boat on RO1 funding -- which is, of course, the main source of funding for anyone in the field -- since the invasion of Iraq. I've also seen people get the funding after initial rejection, after inserting a meaningless paragraph containing the word "bioterrorism" in the grant application. The funding percentage is dropping dramatically... and mostly because the money goes to this perpetual war.
Posted by: Rienk | June 12, 2008 1:18 PM
I am one of those who is still alive because of science. Doctors discovered that I have stage 4 metastatic colorectal cancer in January 2007 (I'm 38). I've had four surgeries (one major), two rounds of chemotherapy (with more to come), one round of radiation, and as far as we can tell, the main tumours (there were two) are gone, and the small metastases in my lungs aren't getting significantly bigger so far. A few decades ago, I would have been dead this far into my disease -- maybe as much as a year ago.
That's not to mention the type 1 diabetes I've had for 17 years. Recombinant DNA technology has created new artificial insulins that have let me manage my blood glucose quite well, even through all my cancer treatments. Less than a century ago, I would have been dead from the diabetes sometime in my 20s. In other words, without evidence-based medical research, I'd be dead twice over by now. :)
As it is, while I'm on medical leave from work, I feel pretty healthy, I can take my kids to and from school, I ride my bike, I've regained some healthy weight, and I'm able to maintain a blog, work on podcasts, see my friends, play drums occasionally in my band, and be with my wonderful wife. I still have a life. And it's not superstition that permitted that: it's medicine.
Posted by: Derek K. Miller | June 12, 2008 1:20 PM
PZ, all my recent emails to you seem to be getting bounced back for some reason.
One I sent you not long back was about this same subject. I wrote a speech I wished Barack Obama would deliver, about medical research, funding and science education: http://hankfox.com/?p=180 , with a followup post on the same subject, an answer to one of my commenters: http://hankfox.com/?p=182 .
Great post on your part, by the way!
Posted by: Hank Fox | June 12, 2008 1:23 PM
PZ,
Thanks for this excellent post. I have been writing my legislators for the last 3 years about the serious problem with NIH funding. I would encourage everyone to do so. PLEASE PLEASE write your legislators and tell them NIH needs more funding and congress needs to push NIH to fund more R01s. It is largely in response to making legislators happy that NIH has wasted money in other areas.
Please tell me where you obtained that graph. I would like to get more up to date information to put in my letter to Senator Conrad.
Posted by: Greg | June 12, 2008 1:28 PM
Yes and no. What happened is that the NIH budget almost doubled between 1998 and 2003. Unfortunately, planning for what would happen afterward was not very good. Instead of a "soft" landing, we had a real "hard landing." Meanwhile, since 2004, because the NIH budget has remained flat or with increases below the rate of biomedical inflation, the real purchasing power of its money has declined alarmingly. I explained a bit about what happened here; so I don't see the need to go into a lot of detail in the comments here.
Posted by: Orac | June 12, 2008 1:35 PM
PZ,
Thanks for this post. I've been reading for about a year now, and I think this is one of my favorites.
Posted by: pjg | June 12, 2008 1:36 PM
I put in eight years working in a radiological physics department that supported a radiation oncology department. I liked the work and helping people who were faced with a difficult life obstacle. It was a teaching and research hospital and it was very hard and demanding work. Every time I hear some crack pot criticize cancer treatment I want to slap the stupid out of them. It's easy to take advantage of people who desperately desire some good news about a difficult situation. Those who pander the afflicted in this way are the worst among us, and there are many.
If I were running for president, my national goal would be progress in understanding and treating cancer. Adequate funding over time will have a huge impact on what we can provide to humanity in this regard.
Posted by: 938Mev | June 12, 2008 1:40 PM
This is not a scientific observation. This is from my life.
I am now 60 years old.
When I was 7 a nice lad (I remember his brown curly hair) stopped coming to school, the whispers - it was always whispered then - said he died of cancer.
When I was 9 my friend started to look thin and ill and stopped coming to school. It was cancer.
When I was 11 it was a bad year, one cancer, one asthma and my best friend's sister died of a burst appendix.
At 14 another asthma and one completely unexplained - 'after a long illness'.
During this 14 years 2 other children I knew entered the living death world of polio and the iron lung, one died the other lived out her life as a talking head until pneumonia took her at 20.
My friend's daughter turned 16 last week. The only death she has known in her life is a single grandparent. She and her friends are not illness free but they are treated and cured by medical practices only dreamed of as science fiction when I was a kid.
So,THANK YOU all you wonderful people who work so hard in science and medicine. You will always have my support.
Posted by: Kitty | June 12, 2008 1:42 PM
Derek,
Dude, that sucks. But, you sound like you're doing everything right, staying as healthy as you can and enjoying your life. Keep getting better!
My mother's husband got diagnosed with throat cancer a couple of years ago (I was astounded that he went to a GP, he's a total hippy), and then promptly started a cleansing diet, herbs, and urine therapy (gross!). He thinks he's cured himself. He's never been back to the GP for confirmation of this. He looks like shit, lost a ton of weight, etc. He's a prime example of what happens to people who ignore medical science and choose alternative (non-effective superstition) medicine.
PZ, thanks for the graph, it's good visual evidence for the increasing efficacy of medicine from a solid scientific base. I'll print it out and show it to all my hippy friends and family.
Posted by: me | June 12, 2008 1:42 PM
My PI is a pediatric oncologist as are two of the postdocs in my lab. I work at the NCI (inducing zebrafish with t-cell tumors) and so have this disconnect between what I do and its human application. And it's no joke, everyone I talk to at the NCI feels the strain from lack of funding as we watch an endless war wage on.
However, this past Christmas I spent a few hours playing video games with some of my PI's young patients at the NIH hospital. It was an amazing experience. Those kids are tougher than you can imagine.
Posted by: caynazzo | June 12, 2008 1:44 PM
we should really support this program....High Pinay
Posted by: chris | June 12, 2008 1:45 PM
Thanks for this PZ.
The distrust of medical science in the world bugs the hell out of me. I once knew someone who thought THIS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin (Laetrile), would help them, so they went down to Mexico (from Canada...) to get it.
I knew this was foolhardy, but I wasn't the one with the seemingly terminal cancer, so it passed.
She died quite quickly, so it's too late for her, but if these sorts of graphs would only get more publicity, and if we could just get the public to quit fearing or distrusting modern medicine, or maybe just understand that "not this, therefore that" is a fallacious form of reasoning (in Evolution vs. Creationism, too!)...
I don't know...
Posted by: Spinoza | June 12, 2008 1:45 PM
Great post, PZ.
I've been doing Relay for Life at my university for the last three years, and our team has been the top fund-raiser for Relay events at all schools in the southeast. It's a great event, and an easy way to get involved.
Posted by: Sam L. | June 12, 2008 1:46 PM
A 13-year-old of my acquaintance recently beat Hodgkin's lymphoma. Obviously a benevolent diety did it. Or--come to think of it--maybe the awesomely competent oncology staff at Los Angeles Children's Hospital had a minor role to play.
I admit, I almost envied theists, at the time. You watch your friends go through this--their only kid has cancer--and all you can do is hang out on the sidelines and wring your hands. I contented myself with bringing food. And agitating for more science funding.
Posted by: Nightsky | June 12, 2008 1:47 PM
While agreeing wholeheartedly with the spirit and intent of the article (I lost my bro-in-law and a family-friend recently to melanoma) there's some chartmanship in the NIH graph.
Firstly, as Jeff points out, graphing the percentage of grants funded is not very useful and doesn't really say anything about how much money is actually being spent.
Secondly the chart suppresses the zero in order to highlight the downturn.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | June 12, 2008 1:49 PM
Please slap a "cancer" tag on this post, so the next time one of my dumbass relatives spams the entire family with the latest miracle cure bullshit, I can easily find this article and shoot it back in their faces.
Posted by: j h woodyatt | June 12, 2008 1:49 PM
Everyone could also eat more vegetables, not smoke, drink moderately, get excercise, wear sunscreen, etc, and we'd all get alot less cancer and other diseases too. Scientific research is showing how everyday behaviours are greatly effecting our health, yet people ignore this advice too. This is not an example of buying into woo like alternative treatments for cancer, but it is an example of ignoring scientific proof.
Less money spent on tertiary healthcare could be spent on research.
Posted by: me | June 12, 2008 1:52 PM
A few short years ago cancer was not mentioned out loud. It was whispered about, as I remember very well from my childhood - I'm forty-six. What amazing progress in just a couple of generations, that now funding research is the issue. In the West, at least, we are no longer whispering about it as if it were a hovering angel of death.
And in a few short years, the sort of idiots who are against vaccination now - the free riders - will be able to be equally stupid and selfish about cancer prevention.
Posted by: valdemar | June 12, 2008 1:52 PM
Could I have the ALL graph on a T-Shirt, please?
Posted by: Joe Dunckley | June 12, 2008 1:56 PM
This post belongs in that list of stellar posts PZ should compile into a book!
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 12, 2008 1:58 PM
What's going on?
More betterer prayers? ;)
Posted by: Moses | June 12, 2008 2:00 PM
Science. It works, bitches. (http://xkcd.com/54/)
Posted by: Julian M Bucknall | June 12, 2008 2:05 PM
Great post, thanx, PZ
Where does the first graph come from?
BTW EU grants from Framework Programmes can be given also to consortia in which there are US partners.
Posted by: migg | June 12, 2008 2:05 PM
Wait a minute: I thought Peter Duesberg had already cured cancer? And Republican Veep contender Bobby Jindal claims that he helped cure someone's cancer in that little exorcism thing, no?.
Posted by: Bad | June 12, 2008 2:07 PM
Thank you for this post, PZ. I'm losing my mother to cancer now, as she's refusing treatment, citing the miserable time she had with her last three rounds of treatment when I was younger. I might have to print this out to give her, or fill her inbox with this.
Science is improving. People are being saved by medical progress, not prayers or crystals, and cancer (and other) research needs to be funded. Money is being given to religious organizations instead of those who really need it, and it makes my blood boil.
Posted by: BeccaTheCyborg | June 12, 2008 2:12 PM
Dr. Myers,
I mean no disrespect when I say this, but I am not involved in pushing for cancer research to the same degree as some. Instead, I am a committee member of our local National Multiple Sclerosis Society's annual bike ride fund-raiser. My mother and her sister are both confined to wheelchairs because of that condition. Not that I haven't worked with the ACS in the past, and there's a good chance I will in the future. I figure that as long as I'm doing SOMETHING active to end a crippling disease, I'm leaving a noble legacy. And I also feel that the more I focus on one event in particular, the less spread-out I am and the more impact I have.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | June 12, 2008 2:16 PM
My mother died of melanoma in 1982. Unfortunately I cannot support the ACS. They spend more money on political advocacy then they do on research.
Posted by: Dan | June 12, 2008 2:18 PM
(Personal and OT)
Brownian,
I work as a medical geographer in the surveillance branch of my provincial cancer board and the survival curves we produce show the incredible effects of new medical interventions as they're implemented.
I'm trying to decide on my second career and "medical geographer" sounds totally cool. What are the requirements for this sort of job? TIA.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | June 12, 2008 2:24 PM
I make blankies for children and adults who are experiencing some distressful situation including cancer.
Over the years I have made hundreds, mostly child size; and last year it was my turn to receive a blankie.
A very tiny DCIS discovered during a routine mammogram and quickly cut away. After a post operative biopsy, my doctor, with a big smile, told me to come back in a year.
I still hug my blankie which has many sweet messages written on the reverse to my heart. Yes, it is woo, but it comforts me.
Giving to cancer research and treatment programs is good, but also consider giving to this international charity, Project Linus. There are over 400 chapters and 2.5 million blankies have been delivered throughout the world.
www.projectlinus.org/
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | June 12, 2008 2:27 PM
Kitty's comment (#33) brought tears to my eyes. That simple outlining of her personal experiences does more to highlight how fortunate we are to live when we do. It also makes me very, very hopeful as to the incredible discoveries science and medicine may find in the future (near and otherwise) as long as we have a society that understands the value of science and supports it accordingly. If not, we are going to have to hope some other enlightened society will share nicely with those of us stuck in the new dark ages.
Posted by: LCR | June 12, 2008 2:29 PM
I wrote too soon. LOTS of these comments speak so well to not only the value of science but also to the hopeful and generous nature of so many people. Thanks for the post, PZ. After mucking through so much of the woo and creationist tripe, it is wonderful to read about what is right with the world.
Posted by: LCR | June 12, 2008 2:39 PM
Thanks for sharing your family history with us, Professor. Mom "beat" breast cancer last year, at least two friends mothers are fighting it, lost one friend to testicular cancer, and a dear friend and mentor to prostate cancer. I recently related a case where a friend of a friend delayed treatment due to lack of medical coverage, and eventually had 13 tumors removed, instead of one small mole.
Remember the slogan: "It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."?
Well, maybe the Air Force should now have to conduct the Bike Rallies and 10K runs.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 12, 2008 2:41 PM
If research is the goal, ACS is not a good choice. They are spending less and less on research--that's not to say that their clinical programs aren't important and working.
Posted by: John | June 12, 2008 2:49 PM
Ah, it's nice to see some good news in here for a change. The story kinda reminds me of my grandmother who had cancer in her early 50's. We all thought it might be the end her. She got treatment, as a result, the cancer went into remission for many years. Normally the average rate for survival was 15 years. She lived 31 years after that, eventually the cancer came back in killed her in 3 days. Her doctor told her and my family she was the longest living cancer patient he had ever seen.
Posted by: Michael | June 12, 2008 2:53 PM
I'm another person who wouldn't be here if not for relatively modern medical technology -- I was born about 2 months premature at about 900g in weight and didn't breathe unassisted. Even though I was born around 30 years ago, I probably wouldn't be here if I'd been born much earlier, and I certainly wouldn't be walking (experimental surgery, at the time). Thanks to the high-priced medical talent and the beneficent government that provided it to me... (Tommy Douglas, I owe you large.)
A loss of basic research funding -- especially in the US, which carries a lot of the world's R&D (although that is changing; a lot of good medical technology is starting to come out of places like Canada and Israel, for instance), is a slow-motion disaster in the making.
Posted by: Interrobang | June 12, 2008 3:01 PM
Just two weeks ago I drove 4 hours to a board meeting retreat with a pediatric oncology nurse. I was surprised to hear her talk about her work cheerfully, too. She disabused me of my preconcieved notions about the mortality rate in that field.
And I am a pediatric oncology survival story myself (malignant melanoma at age 17).
Posted by: idahogie | June 12, 2008 3:10 PM
Oh thank you PZ for this. This post was uplifting and a well-needed antidote to the depressing article that just ran in the StarTribune about Applied Kinesiology and qigong. Evidence-based medicine works!
Posted by: Navin | June 12, 2008 3:12 PM
Donating to the American Cancer Society is a good thing.
But this Relay for life thing ?
Going through some of these pages and I'm thinking, why do Americans always have to be so melodramatic ?
-"Relay is a moving celebration of cancer survivorship."
-"As a community event, Relay fulfills a need for belonging that we all have."
I don't know, there's something with it that I found particularly distasteful. Call me cold and cynical, but I've lost half of my family to cancer, and I just don't understand why this is necessary to get people to give more money. It's actually sad to think that it is.
I don't know, I just don't understand the point of it all, this marketing, this organisation, this quasi .... religiosity in the whole thing. Maybe it's cultural misunderstanding, afterall, I'm French, you know we can be quite rude with these things.
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 12, 2008 3:13 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | June 12, 2008 3:14 PM
A start would be to cut this nonsense (121M dollar yearly).
http://nccam.nih.gov/
Posted by: ihedenius | June 12, 2008 3:21 PM
Good post PZ, and equally good comments from everyone who has a story or comment to relate on the heartbreak and the never ending quest to cure this most ancient of diseases. And what is foremost in the comments is the regard and determination that science and the will to apply it in it's various mainfestations will cure or abate this most heinous of human afflictions without the need of religious interference or false hope.
Posted by: Holbach | June 12, 2008 3:32 PM
What money? People are losing their jobs and homes, giving to charity is not an option for many people.
We are caught in the ripples of a dying economy. We are at the precipice of great change. Will our society be a victim of Peak Oil along with water and food shortages or will great scientific advances be made?
Posted by: K | June 12, 2008 3:39 PM
I want that first graph on a t-shirt, completely with "Evidence-based medicine. It works." above it.
Posted by: robhoofd | June 12, 2008 3:52 PM
Questions like these are always hard for me to answer, since I've never held a job I was 'officially' qualified for. (Basically, I did half a master's in human geography, quit, and then reapplied to the organisation I'd been working for as a biostatistician before I quit to go back to school (oh yeah. Guess who has no training in biostatistics other than one undergrad course, either.)) My manager conflated geography with geographic information systems (GIS), and somebody previously had bought some GIS software that no one knew how to use. So initially, the difference between me and everyone else I work with is that I had the fortitude to turn the damn software on and give it a whirl.
My personal Rube-Goldbergian career path aside, medical geography requires a general understanding of epidemiology, public and population health and how spatial analysis, GIS, and other geographical tools and methods can augment these disciplines. Many university geography departments offer degrees in medical geography, but GIS specialists can also get work in the field without necessarily pursuing a Masters or PhD.
I'm not sure where you are located, but here is the US National Cancer Institute's webpage about GIS: http://gis.cancer.gov/ and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries' GIS committe site is here: http://www.naaccr.org/index.asp?Col_SectionKey=9&Col_ContentID=281
and the CDC has a site on GIS as well: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/gis.htm
Finally, for some info that's not so GIS-focussed, this is the website of a friend of mine who actually happens to be a bonafide PhD'd medical geographer: http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/geo/faculty/yiannakoulias/research.html
As I noted above, I'm not the best resource for orthodox method of entries into the field, but I hope this sheds some light. If you need anything else, my email is in the link to my name in this comment.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 12, 2008 3:52 PM
The last chart is almost meaningless without comparing to absolute dollar amounts (and probably median amounts per funded and not funded applications) as well.
Posted by: Andrey Naumov | June 12, 2008 3:53 PM
Bureaucratus Minimis, I wrote a reply post about medical geography, but it's got more than one hyperlink in it so it's being held for moderation.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 12, 2008 3:55 PM
Actually, no, it's very meaningful to people trying to pursue a career in biomedical research. It's from the perspective of the scientist -- it says that you are going to have to work much, much harder to get funding.
It would be just as crippling to the advancement of science if NIH funding were doubled, but grants to established programs were quadrupled, creating an almost insurmountable barrier to establishing new labs.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 12, 2008 4:07 PM
I've been reading Pharyngula for a couple of years now and this is my favourite post to date. I've spent almost my entire career in cancer research centres (UK and Canada), and as part of my current job I see a lot of survival curves for individual clinical trials. But seeing the historical trend really puts things into perspective.
Progress requires research; research requires money.
Posted by: VWXYNot? | June 12, 2008 4:11 PM
I'd like to put in a plug for saving the rainforests. Why? My son was in one of those yellow lines, dying of lymphocytic leukemia a few years before they found a cure, from a little purple flower in the jungles of Madagascar. Y'know, the ones we're cutting down so fast. Everything's related.
Posted by: watercat | June 12, 2008 4:24 PM
Your post definitely hit home. I lost a 29-year-old friend to melanoma some years back, and a 41-year-old cousin to kidney cancer two years ago. My husband had a relative who died way too young of breast cancer because she spurned medicine for woo.
On a brighter note, I have a number of friends and relatives who are long term cancer survivors (in one case, 55 years!), and the oncologists I've met have been upbeat, optimistic people. I think that field may select for the optimistic phenotype.
The graphs tell a great story too. When we were kids, pediatric leukemias meant death. Cancer is obviously still a frightening and dangerous thing, but there's real hope for patients now, and real success from cancer treatments -- and medical research is the source of that success. (Gee, y'think someone could explain that to Ben Stein?)
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | June 12, 2008 4:31 PM
My little brother was diagnosed with neuroblastoma at age 2 in 1972; he was dead just before his 4th birthday. Now that's regularly curable. We have indeed come a long way in not all that long on some cancers---just not enough of them.
Posted by: Mark ZZZZZzzzzz | June 12, 2008 4:53 PM
Whatever happened to the "Cheerful Oncologist" blog, formerly part of the mighty sprawling ScienceBlogs empire?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 12, 2008 5:04 PM
A friend of the family just died about an hour ago. Didn't really sink in till i started reading this and realised that if the last graph wasn't pointing downward he might still be here.
To be honest, the largest expense i can think of around 2002/2003 was the war on terrorism. Though i wouldn't know where to look for checking such a correlation.
Keep up the good work everybody.
Posted by: Richard Eis | June 12, 2008 5:11 PM
As an engineer there is nothing I can do clinically to help in the search for cancer treatments, so I am doing a 65 mile charity cycle ride for the Anthony Nolan Trust (leukaemia)
http://www.blenheimpalace.com/whatson/view.htm?id=436
Given the unreliable English weather, I just hope it isn't chucking it down with rain !!
Posted by: synthesist | June 12, 2008 5:17 PM