“We’re in a revolution with respect to cancer treatment” Reading this quote from the original article make me nauseous. We're in a revolution with respect to c

“We’re in a revolution with respect to cancer treatment” Reading this quote from the original article make me nauseous. We're in a revolution with respect to cancer RESEARCH. PEOPLE are the ones being treated. You can't only focus on a math equation. You also need to focus both on palliative care and explainable research. The article seemed to save that acknowledgement for the last two sentences. My father has been an oncology physician/researcher for 35 years. He regularly has to tell to some of his non-physician researchers that their work needs to be explainable to both his patients and those who will continue funding the research, yet they consistently show up with black box neural networks saying "we found it!"... found what exactly? He has to be able to convince his master-of-the-universe patients that he knows more than WebMD or their favorite holistic blog, see: Steve Jobs. It's incredibly more common than one would hope, see: anti-vax. Just to clarify, there is nothing wrong with ML research into cancer. However, research isn't treatment. Oncology is depressing. Fewer and fewer doctors are interested in specializing in it. The overall suicide rate of physicians is double the general population, and that's not even oncology-specific. There's a revolution with respect to cancer treatment, and it's a pretty scary downward spiral. Announcements such as these can end up taking money AWAY from cancer treatment. The government sees this stuff and jumps on the bandwagon. "Why fund humans when computers can do it?" Government research grants pay my father's salary along with all of his physician-researchers and students. Without that funding, people just get to read about the upcoming research while they wait to die.