7 ms·
Cancer treatment should not be viewed as a race. The world needs to team up. We all win when someone finds a new cure.
by yohann305 9y ago
Cancer treatment should not be viewed as a race. The world needs to team up. We all win when someone finds a new cure.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- loceng 9y agoRaces can be healthy - non-aggressive in nature - like racing for prestige; you can race other people on your own team too! Sharing information of course is important in case important discoveries are kept quiet by a corporation with ulterior motive.
- _rpd 9y agoI would go even further and say that competition is vital to innovation. Without it, too few are willing to take risks and progress stagnates.
- IntronExon 9y agoYou don’t think the prospect of treating cancer is insufficient motivation, there needs to be some poxy “race” as well? You’re selling both the motivations of researchers, and the practical rewards of that research short.
- _rpd 9y agoIt is less about individuals and more about the organizations and funding systems that accumulate over time. Any research worth their salt can tell you stories of opportunities missed due to bureaucratic constraints.
- jamesrcole 9y agoWhat is the problem with there being a race element as well? Anyway, I don't see how it's avoidable. There'll be kudos, prestige, more grant money, etc for people who make advances, so there's going to be a race element to it as well.
- IntronExon 9y agoI would go even further and say that competition is vital to innovation. Without it, too few are willing to take risks and progress stagnates. That’s what I responded to. Vital. Few willing to take risks. To fight cancer!
- jamesrcole 9y agoI don't know about "vital" but I do think competition is intrinsic to it. They want to make a contribution to addressing this important problem, which means they want to beat others to it. It adds impetus. Also, the motivations I mentioned apply, to some extent, to the funding bodies.
- IntronExon 9y agoEvery one of those individuals and their bosses, and fundraisers all are or will be affected by cancer, either personally or in their close relationships. There is a reason why cancer research is so well funded, both privately and through charity. Ideology isn’t required here.
- jamesrcole 9y agoWhy are you equating races to be first with ideology? I do not see any connection at all. Also, I think the reasons you give are exactly why you should want there to be races involved, because they will help speed progress. You said they weren't vital to doing the research, and I concede that, but you haven't argued that progress will happen at the same or a faster pace without competition.
- IntronExon 9y agoI don't think that I need to given the universal stakes I’ve described. Neither you nor the original poster I replied to have explained why a much less significant “race” aspect would be helpful, and I’m not eager to adopt that burden for you. Science works best as a collaborative effort, and races breed insular teamwork. There is already tons of money tomfoht cancer, not in the least because of the fame and fortune awaiting anyone making signifanct inroads to curing cancer. So what does this additional “race” crap add that isn’t already there?
- loceng 9y agoThe motivation comes from seeing or experience loved ones you know suffering, up to dying, from cancer - and perhaps from seeing the barbaric feeling treatments that exist for cancer currently. Edit: I suppose having races is positive hype-marketing machine, hopefully playfully tapping into our dopamine reward systems.
- IntronExon 9y agoExactly, we’ve all been affected in some way by cancer, no need for a race against anything other than cancer itself.
- loceng 9y agoWell put.
- daxorid 9y ago> treating cancer is insufficient motivation The fact that the US unnecessarily hamstrings cancer research over dubious moral qualms clearly indicates that yes, treating cancer is itself insufficient motivation in this country.
- IntronExon 9y agoWhat dubious moral qualms are you referring to?
- vkou 9y agoThings like requiring drug companies to conclusively prove that their treatments actually work and don't kill people when used as intended.
- IntronExon 9y agoHow monstrous! I too yearn for the halcyon days of thalidomide.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> You’re selling both the motivations of researchers, and the practical rewards of that research short You're selling the evidence short [1][2]. Commercial, political and basic research opportunities compete for resources from the same well. Competition increases the tap to basic research. That, in turn, increases output. (Up to a point [3].) [1] http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094753?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094753?seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont... [2] http://www.mba.intercol.edu/Entrepreneurship/UT%20Computer%20Science%20Course/Simple_Economics_Basic_Research.pdf http://www.mba.intercol.edu/Entrepreneurship/UT%20Computer%2... [3] http://eprints.rclis.org/23682/1/Current-socio-published-non-Sage-format.pdf http://eprints.rclis.org/23682/1/Current-socio-published-non...
- realitygrill 9y agoAs for the motivations of researchers: If any student comes to me and says he wants to be useful to mankind and go into research to alleviate human suffering, I advise him to go into charity instead. Research wants real egotists who seek their own pleasure and satisfaction, but find it in solving the puzzles of nature. --Albert Szent-Györgyi My [indefensible] impression is that altruistic culture is a strong part of the reason why the quality of biomedical researchers is so poor, and cancer research funding is so often near-fraudulent.
- musage 9y ago"Research" doesn't want anything, and if that guy wants that, he should make a good case for it. Personally, I find this has the priorities much more in line: > Our time is distinguished by wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical application of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind. What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living. -- Albert Einstein > My [indefensible] impression is that altruistic culture is a strong part of the reason why the quality of biomedical researchers is so poor, and cancer research funding is so often near-fraudulent. Indefensible means you're not prepared to offer any elaboration at all? What's the line of reasoning here? Nevermind evidence, but you have to have more than just the claim. And what is fraudulent funding? If all people involved were "too altruistic", would anyone ever make sloppy research to grab funding, around a subject involving so much suffering?
- tooltalk 9y agoSure, altruistic motives and races aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Their ends goals are to find cure for cancer, but researchers should be able to use different, competing approaches to find the best solution to the problem.
- 0xJRS 9y agoCoopetition
- xiphias 9y agoThe world is teamed up more than ever: as soon as there was result it was published on internet. The ongoing study was published on a U.S. website. The lots of interesting trials that are going on is the opposite of what was happening in the last 30 years when it took many years for a drug company to publish any result of any interesting test that it had made.
- jlebrech 9y agoif you team up you look for solutions in the same places.
- throwawaymanbot 9y agoWhy worry about a word in the title, and why worry if it is a race. Someone always has to lose a race. Right now its cancer patients.