I am a medical student and biotech researcher. My lab does cancer diagnostics. In a certain sense, money can be used to solve all solvable problems since it bu

I am a medical student and biotech researcher. My lab does cancer diagnostics. In a certain sense, money can be used to solve all solvable problems since it buys people's time and expertise. In that sense, your question can be rephrased as "Will cancer ever eventually be cured?" The answer to that question is likely yes. Cancer is a group of diseases that one-by-one are indeed being "cured". The low-hanging fruits are exhausted, yes, but one day there is no reason to think that with enough research in gene editing we can't cure every cancer we detect. The time in years it will take to reach that point will be shortened monotonically with the amount of money spent on it. Although my personal guess is that the money required will be astronomical. A more interesting question is whether large sums of money are best earmarked only for cancer or for general basic science. This was the fundamental debate between Sidney Farber (who wanted a "Manhattan Project" for cancer) and Vannevar Bush (who wanted more funding to basic science) [0]. There are whole books written about this debate, and from my experience I believe that true breakthroughs come when people are thinking multi-disciplinary and creatively, which means funding basic science not earmarked only for cancer. A good recent example of this is AlphaFold, which came from an unrelated field (deep learning) and is being used by my friends and lab-mates today for cancer research. Refs [0] - https://erenow.net/common/the-emperor-of-all-maladies/3.php https://erenow.net/common/the-emperor-of-all-maladies/3.php