>We should have it down to basically zero by now. How can you claim to know a priori how many resources need to be thrown at a problem to solve it? Cancer is

>We should have it down to basically zero by now. How can you claim to know a priori how many resources need to be thrown at a problem to solve it? Cancer is one of the most complex diseases in existence. Eliminating it requires sci-fi levels of technology in areas like molecular biology, gene editing, immunology, and pharmacology. I would say we have made a remarkable amount of progress given that we didn't know what DNA was 70 years ago. We already know how to eliminate malaria, which we have successfully done in many developed countries. The underlying problem is poverty and lack of infrastructure in developing countries, which isn't trivial to solve either. Perfectionism is the wrong attitude to take here. All progress happens through incremental improvement.