3 ms·

> And breast cancer gets more funding than pancreatic cancer even though pancreatic cancer kills about everyone who gets it because, you know, the boobies Or p

by objclxt 14y ago

> And breast cancer gets more funding than pancreatic cancer even though pancreatic cancer kills about everyone who gets it because, you know, the boobies Or perhaps breast cancer gets more funding because it's far more common? Here in the UK, the incidence rate for breast cancer is 125.7/100,000, whereas the incidence rate for pancreatic cancer is 9.3/100,000. And before you say "but pancreatic cancer kills more people", that's also not true. Again, in the UK the mortality rate for breast cancer is 24.3/100,000, whereas for pancreatic cancer it's 12.6/100,000 [1]. More people die from breast cancer than pancreatic cancer. That's why the former is funded more than the latter. Not "because, you know, the boobies". [1] All these stats are from http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats

jsnk 14y ago
> Among the big cancers, breast cancer receives the most funding per new case, $2,596 — and by far the most money relative to each death, $13,452. Notably, prostate cancer, the most common cancer, receives the least funding per new case at just $1,318. But on a per-death basis it ranks second, with $11,298 in N.C.I. funds. Source [http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does-it-add-up/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does...] We should look at normalized figures of funding per death, or funding per incidence.
scotch_drinker 14y ago
Again, not sure it's much more grey than that. In the US, breast cancer gets more funding in part because the Susan G. Komen organization is massive, powerful and well connected. Age adjusted death rates for females has fallen dramatically since 1975 while funding has dramatically increased. Yes funding happens because breast cancer happens more but also because the breast cancer lobby exists and the pancreatic cancer lobby mostly doesn't. [1] [http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009_pops09/browse_csr.php?section=4&page=sect_04_table.10.html http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009_pops09/browse_csr.php?s...] [2] [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-fu...]
- s_baby 14y ago
  The NIH also spends twice as much on researching female specific diseases as they do on male specific diseases.

by objclxt 14y ago

jsnk 14y ago

> Among the big cancers, breast cancer receives the most funding per new case, $2,596 — and by far the most money relative to each death, $13,452. Notably, prostate cancer, the most common cancer, receives the least funding per new case at just $1,318. But on a per-death basis it ranks second, with $11,298 in N.C.I. funds. Source [http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does-it-add-up/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does...] We should look at normalized figures of funding per death, or funding per incidence.

scotch_drinker 14y ago

Again, not sure it's much more grey than that. In the US, breast cancer gets more funding in part because the Susan G. Komen organization is massive, powerful and well connected. Age adjusted death rates for females has fallen dramatically since 1975 while funding has dramatically increased. Yes funding happens because breast cancer happens more but also because the breast cancer lobby exists and the pancreatic cancer lobby mostly doesn't. [1] [http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009_pops09/browse_csr.php?section=4&page=sect_04_table.10.html http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009_pops09/browse_csr.php?s...] [2] [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-fu...]

s_baby 14y ago
The NIH also spends twice as much on researching female specific diseases as they do on male specific diseases.