It seems like the point of this article is we could cure cancer if we wanted to. It’s just a matter of incentives. That’s not true. It’s not a money or effor

It seems like the point of this article is we could cure cancer if we wanted to. It’s just a matter of incentives. That’s not true. It’s not a money or effort hurdle, it’s a knowledge and technology hurdle. Now one might argue that with enough money the knowledge and technology hurdle could be overcome, but I would disagree. There are too many elements that are missing - biological tools, chemical probes, analytical techniques, laboratory procedures. Sure money could advance those, but we don’t know which ones we need. One key (of many) to curing cancer could be the discovery of some mammalian cellular pathway. But we don’t know it exists so how would you find it? And even if it was discovered, you might not know it’s important. Science often advances by the intersection of seemingly unconnected discoveries. You don’t know they matter until you do. It’s not a matter of just finding a specific area.