let's take 10% of the military budget and eradicate cancer

[spanone]

60 billion oughta do it, don't you think?

this fucking disease is way overdue to be GONE

it's taking too many people i know

make it like the kennedy 'man on the moon' mission

with a cure, we could garner all kinds of friendships in the world

crazy? watch someone you love die from this fucking disease

[tuckessee]

1. Americans are quite content eradicating ragheads instead.

We have all these heroes and they must kill somebody.

[TooBigaTent]

2. Let's take 80% and really do something(s) positive. Just think what good could be

done if the MIC did not rule our nation.

[hendo]

3. My wife does cancer research..

I think you over-estimate the ability to find a cure and underestimate the cost of lab supplies.

[spanone]

5. then why does she do research?

[hendo]

7. Because she enjoys doing research.

[spanone]

9. i would hope research is done to find a cure.

then let's take 20 percent

[hendo]

11. 20% is likely getting closer to the amount that would be needed.

However, there is also a shortage of individuals willing to do cancer research. There is more money in pharmaceuticals than in finding a cure for any disease. That is definately an issue that needs to be addressed if America becomes concerned with finding cures rather than medicating the problems after the fact.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. "However, there is also a shortage of individuals willing to do cancer research."

You're just making shit up.

[hendo]

32. there is a shortage of qualified scientists who are willing to settle for the lower wages

Most of the good ones go where the real money is.

[spanone]

36. that's my point...put 'real money' into it and entice the best scientists

[hendo]

40. It would be great if we would do that.

However, I do not think American priorities are quite there yet.

[spanone]

42. this is what happened in the space mission..we got the best from all over the world

[hendo]

45. In my opinion

There isn't as much of a drive to cure cancer as there was to be the first to put a man on the moon.

[spanone]

62. of course not, there was no drive to go to the moon till kennedy made one.

[hendo]

63. The way I see it

There was no drive to get to the moon until the US thought the USSR might get there first. Kennedy just happened to be in power at the time.

[Juche]

33. Alot of research is done in colleges & universities

I did cancer research in college and so did a variety of other lab groups. The labor is dirt cheap, you have the undergrads working free, grad students & postdocs working for 25k a year and the professor who makes about 70k a year.

[hendo]

35. That fails to take into account the money required for supplies and equipment

labor costs are a small percentage of the actual costs in any industry.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. 10% annual military budget = ~60 billion

(probably a gross underestimation)

Entire NIH annual budget <30 billion

[hendo]

43. I was responding to Juche.

but do you honestly think that all that any problem requires is to have more money thrown at it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Yes.

The major political issue with the entire American scientific community is the lack of funding. Bush has slashed budgets over the last eight years. Grant awardment has hit an all time bottom. Obama's even made it a campaign issue.

Go ahead and ask your wife. She can fill you in.

[hendo]

50. more money alone does not fix the issue at hand. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. More money alone would fix the issue at hand.

Try to pay attention. Cancer research is not being performed due to a lack of funding.

[hendo]

56. more money alone would not focus society on a search for a cure.

For that you need to reeducate the populace.

Even our presidential candidate understands that some problems require more than just an influx of money.

Although, you are right, in this case money definately would not hurt.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Society is focused on a cure.

Most people I know want to have a cure for cancer.

There are plenty of scientists willing to do the work, all they need is the money.

[hendo]

59. I hope you're right, but I don't see it nt

[Occulus]

47. Do you honestly think throwing more money at this *wouldn't* help?

I mean, hello. Fund education so people who are willing to do the research can go to college, fund the labs so they have the supplies and equipment they need, fund the universities so they can build state-of-the-art cancer research labs, etc.

More money isn't some magic wand that will poof a cure for cancer into being, but it certainly would allow for research into a cure to be done. Yes, by ALL means, take as much as we need to do the job.

[hendo]

48. More money along with necessary reforms and a shift in priorities

is what is needed to ensure that any influx of more money solves anything.

[hendo]

49. dupe

self delete

[Juche]

55. You said scientists won't go where there isn't money

I'm saying alot of scientists make peanuts. The undergrads, grad students and postdocs don't make much money. Median salary for an assistant professor is only about 60-70k. Obviously there is lab equipment but the labor costs in research universities don't seem that high. And universities do alot of medical research. So I don't understand your argument that scientists won't go where there isn't money when they already do go there (school) and do cancer research.

I read once that when you factor in work hours, amount of education, talent level and things like that scientists are among the lowest paid workers out there. Its very sad that our priorities are so backwards and many of the well paid scientists are paid to research bullshite. ie, find out how to change an atom on paxil so we can repatent it, that kind of thing.

I hope China takes R&D more seriously than we do in America. I won't be suprised when 10 years from now the cures for HIV and Alzheimers come out of Chinese labs rather than US labs.

[Bill McBlueState]

37. nothing like cheap labor

You kind of sound like you think it's a good thing when people get paid peanuts (or not at all, for your undergrads) even though they do really important work.

If I were hoping to benefit from life-saving research, I would also hope the researchers were getting paid at least a living wage for their efforts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. LOL

Does she know you think so poorly of her work?

[hendo]

38. you seem to be confused

It isn't thinking poorly of her work to state facts about it. I think she is doing something very noble. I do wish she would consider industry though, we could sure use the money.

[tuckessee]

8. Why?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

That's why.

[hendo]

18. people who work in labs on cures and such

don't make anywhere near what employees at pharmaceutical companies do.

[tuckessee]

21. Oh, I didn't know degreed cancer researchers earn poverty wages. n/t

[hendo]

31. not quite poverty

closer to 30k without a PhD. around 35-40 with one. Either way, not nearly enough considering people in industry make 75-90 with a PhD. It is like being a professor, you have to love what you do. Because if you don't, you are crazy to stay.

[Bill McBlueState]

41. That's understandable

People tend to assume that you must get paid really well if you have a PhD.

The pay typically isn't poverty-level, but it's certainly not in proportion to the difficulty of the work.

[DangerDave921]

17. Agreed

Over the past 30 years, think about how much money has been devoted to cancer research. While we have made advances in treatment, there is no semblance of a true cure. More money would not change that. Sorry. You're making the assumption that there exists a cure, which we simply haven't found because of a lack of money.

[spanone]

19. yes, i assume there is a cure out there. and money will find it.

[DangerDave921]

20. Optimsitic

Scientifically, I think you're being overly optimistic. There are so many different kinds of cancer that a "cure" will never happen, at least in our lifetimes.

[spanone]

23. yep, optimistic.....

[Occulus]

51. There are lots of people advocating spending not a great deal on cancer research.

I wonder why that is, I really do. It comes across as saying we shouldn't spend what it takes to clean up an oil spill, or a site like, say, Chernobyl.

As in, certifiably insane.

More money won't find a cure all by itself, but it will allow for further research that could benefit us in other ways. Then there's the funding to universities targeted to cancer research. Better labs in more locations = more researchers, especially if we can find a way to make it more worth their while from a financial standpoint.

Spending more money on cancer research is a win/win situation that will- not might, but will- pay off in the future orders of magnitude more than we're willing to maybe possibly invest. Why anyone would oppose this is completely incomprehensible to me.

[DangerDave921]

65. How much is enough?

If you think about it, no matter how much you do spend, you could always say "let's spend more." Of course more money would be better. But you could say that about research into anything: cerebral palsy, arthritis, heart disease, etc. To say we should spend more is meaningless without saying how much we should spend.

[Juche]

68. We only spend $95 billion/yr in medical research

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9407342/

At least in 2005, it is probably closer to $105 billion by now.

And I say 'only' because that is still a tiny amount for all the problems and issues healthcare can cause. We lose trillions in medical spending and lost productivity due to medical issues, and we are spending a small fraction of it on R&D.

I am guessing that of that $100 billion or so, maybe $5-10 billion goes to cancer. So adding another $40-50 billion by cutting 10% of defense spending would accomplish amazing things.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Meanwhile, back in the real world...

NIH grant funding is at a critical low and much cancer research is not being done due lack of funding.

[lpbk2713]

4. Big Pharma & The Health Care Conglomerates wouldn't like that a bit.

You'd better hope they don't find out who you are, talking like that. :hide:



:sarcasm:

[spanone]

6. there are large dollars in chemo and such

[maxsolomon]

10. how about we take 50% of the pentagon's budget

and provide solar power, clean water, sewage, and non-judgemental birth control to the 3rd world?

or just balance the budget & pay off the national debt?

what would do the greatest good for the greatest number of people for the least money per person?

[On the Road]

12. That Was Pretty Much the Tradeoff I Had in Mind

If we're going to have massive government spending, might as well do something to really help the country.

[Terran]

13. On year's military budget would eradicate homelessness

That's one I'd like to see happen, personally. But cancer is good too.

Actually, what I'd really like to see is something like this attitude, just in general:

"Ooooo, y'know what Generals? Look, I'm really sorry, but we've really gotta use your budget this year to convert the country to solar and wind power. Maybe next year, m'kay?"

[Zavulon]

14. Sure, $60 billion in grants to people who subsist on government grants. Sure, that'll do it.

I'm sure they'll whip up that cure pronto and end their own gravy train.

Sorry, but after seeing how our defense budget has been spent and seeing how much money has gone into other diseases with no results, I have no faith whatsoever that $60 billion would do much more than send some researchers' kids to college in brand-new Mercedes.

[spanone]

15. i can dream

[Zavulon]

16. No law against it.

But if we're going down your route, let's try a different suggestion just for fun: all money earmarked for pork projects for the next five (ten, fifteen, twenty) years goes to cancer.

As much as I hate the way the military budget is going, I hate pork spending even more. I'm sorry, but throwing cash at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame or the Cowgirl Hall of Fame (just as two of literally millions of examples) is not and should not be a federal responsibility.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. LOL

Yeah, I'm sick and tired of seeing all these school teachers and research scientists zipping around in their fancy sports cars.

:rofl:

[Xithras]

22. There will never be a "cure" because it isn't a disease in the normal sense.

Cancer isn't something you catch, but is simply the mutation of your own natural cells. Your body has hundreds of types of cells, and each of those types can malfunction in a variety of different ways. Each of those ways, for each of those cell types, is a different kind of cancer. Each requires a different kind of treatment.

The problem with "curing" cancer is that it suggests a vaccine of some sort. Our bodies are imperfect, and it's impossible to prevent cells from dividing and mutating. In fact, you'd die if you tried to do so. Every tumor starts with one single cell division going wrong...how do you prevent that? A doctor-friend once told me that every human would die of cancer if other maladies weren't killing us first. If we cured every other human cause of death, we'd all just get cancer instead.

The best we can hope for is improved methods for treating cancer once it's found. Still, there will always be people who don't find their tumors until it's too late, or who have too many tumors to treat without putting the body into shock, or who have fast moving tumors that simply overwhelm vital body parts (like the brain) before treatment can be accomplished. There will always be people who die of cancer.

[spanone]

24. if i believed that for one minute i would never have made this post

[Xithras]

72. What is there to disbelieve? Everything I posted is medical fact.

Cancer is merely an abnormal mutation of a human cell, usually caused by an abnormal cell replication or cell division. Yes, some external factors can increase the likelihood of your cells improperly dividing, but even without those external factors the math just isn't on our side. By most estimates, there are up to 75 trillion cells in the human body. That's 75,000,000,000,000 cells. On average, each of those cells will split for regeneration 52 times between your birth and death. That means, in your lifetime, you'll have a total of 3,900,000,000,000,000 or 3.9 quadrillion cells in your body. It only takes one mutated cell to start a tumor. One in 3.9 quadrillion. The odds are better that you will hit the California lottery jackpot a hundred times over than they are for you to make it through life without a single cellular mutation.

Cancer will never be stopped simply because it's the normal byproduct of our imperfect cellular division process. As I said, the best we can hope for is better treatment options, but it's a given that we'll never be able to save everyone. There will always be cancer victims.

I don't say this to be callous because, like you, I've lost people I loved to the disease. I say this because I think it's unfair that some in the medical research community like to string people along with baseless hope of a cancer-free future...if only we'll throw more money at them to make it happen. Research money is needed, but it should go where it will really do some good. We need better methods to detect cancer, and better ways to treat it once it's found. Throwing billions down the rabbit hole in the vain and baseless hope of developing a magic cancer vaccine doesn't help anybody.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Pff.

Yeah, and if you prevent all other forms of death, then everybody's going to die by getting run over by cement mixers.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Jesus Christ.

Reading this thread's like taking a trip down ignorance lane.

[Juche]

34. 75% of medical costs go to chronic diseases

I have seen that statistic alot but don't know where it originated. Supposedly 1.5 trillion of our 2 trillion healthcare system goes to a handful of chronic diseases.

Cancer, CVD, stroke, type II diabetes, arthritis, alzheimers, parkinsons, dementia, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, COPD, asthma, etc.

If we really got serious about preventing, curing and diagnosing these diseases it'd probably cut medical expenses dramatically.

As for cancer I don't think you can cure it per se, but with treatments like localized chemotherapy where the chemo drugs or radiation therapy is localized and only attacks the cancer cells combined with better diagnostics so you can catch cancer in stage I or II it can probably be defeated as a major cause of death and disability. I'd wager we are 5-10 years away from those technologies being marketed and mainstream though, but they are fairly close to market.

[ColbertWatcher]

44. Insurance reform would pay for it as well.

Removing GOP military-industrial complex can pay for the health care veterans need.

[hootinholler]

53. Let's take 100% of the fraudulently 'earned' money by DOD contractors

and give everyone healthcare and education.

-Hoot

[hughee99]

54. I think curing cancer is more difficult than just cutting a big enough check. n/t

[spanone]

61. i'm proposing making it a national priority....a mission...not just cut a big check

[Tommy_Carcetti]

57. I wonder how much of our military budget is wasted by defense contractors

My guess is more than just 10%. Contractors doing the same thing our guys and gals in uniform can be doing, except for three times the cost, and without the sense of duty or patriotism.

Not to mention the cost of going on junkets that have nothing to do with our national security, i.e. Iraq.

Spend that money on more worthy purposes, indeed!

[Prophet 451]

60. Absolutely not

Forget 10%, that's nowhere near enough. Try 50%, that should provide enough cash to enact the reforms needed as well. Still leaves at least $300 billion, vastly more than any other nation spends on it's military and easily enough to defend the country.

[Echo In Light]

64. Wha..!? ...reduce the perversely huge military budget? Eradicate cancer? How un-American

[readmoreoften]

74. Yeah, eradicate it? I'm sure they'd rather figure out how to weaponize it.

[many a good man]

66. For reference...

[Indenturedebtor]

67. Why not 90%? n/t

[lpbk2713]

69. 'Defense' is a misnomer.

'Offense' would be more accurate.

[Lorien]

70. Thanks for those

I was looking for those stats.

[Horse with no Name]

71. Hopefully by the time I get my biopsy results on Monday

:fingers crossed:

[greymattermom]

73. research

Right now you have to be better than the top 10% to get any money from NIH. We call that "single digit paylines" in the field. I spent the last 2 years writing grant proposals and am now funded by industry. My areas: traumatic brain injury and migraine. The situation in science is tragic as many people who trained for over 10 years will soon be unemployed. Any increase would be better than what we have now. We're giving up our lead in science. We used to train mainly Chinese students, now it's Indians. I used to train Ph.D. students, but now I only take M.D./ Ph.D. students as they will always have a job.

[Honeycombe8]

75. I'd love to. But we need the military budget. nt