3 ms·

It's the other way around, actually. HIV gets a massively disproportionate amount of funds. Cancer gets disproportionately little. Also, as we are eliminating

It's the other way around, actually. HIV gets a massively disproportionate amount of funds. Cancer gets disproportionately little. Also, as we are eliminating competing risks, cancer is emerging as a huge source of death in developing economies.

Blahah 13y ago
That's true only in the specific case of HIV in the USA - the funding in the USA for cancer vs HIV is about right for the global number of deaths from those diseases. Especially if you consider that cancer is showing no sign of being a curable problem, while HIV is. For other diseases - malaria, dengue, hepatitis, typhoid etc., not to mention malnutrition - global spending is massively disporportionate in favour of cancer.
- hueving 13y ago
  >Especially if you consider that cancer is showing no sign of being a curable problem, while HIV is. "We haven't found a solution to this problem" is possibly the worst reason I've ever heard to cut back on research.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    I'm not suggesting cutting back on research, but distributing the research budget effectively. We need some long-term research into cancer cures, but not at the cost of the lives of people who can be saved today or in the very near future.
  - renata 13y ago
    Surely at some point it makes sense to cut your losses and redirect funding to research on other diseases. It's just an ROI calculation.
    - hueving 13y ago
      Only if there is nothing coming out of this research. Many things are often discovered when looking for something else.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    It's not just that we haven't found a solution. Cancer is not a single condition - it's a multitude of different diseases with similar mechanisms and different causes. The cure for one type of cancer is usually ineffective for most other types. Frequently researchers have encouraging results on one set of patients that never happen again on another set. HIV is a relatively easy problem when compared to cancer.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
Fomite 13y ago
NCI is one of the best funded institutes in the NIH.

Blahah 13y ago

That's true only in the specific case of HIV in the USA - the funding in the USA for cancer vs HIV is about right for the global number of deaths from those diseases. Especially if you consider that cancer is showing no sign of being a curable problem, while HIV is. For other diseases - malaria, dengue, hepatitis, typhoid etc., not to mention malnutrition - global spending is massively disporportionate in favour of cancer.

hueving 13y ago
>Especially if you consider that cancer is showing no sign of being a curable problem, while HIV is. "We haven't found a solution to this problem" is possibly the worst reason I've ever heard to cut back on research.
- Blahah 13y ago
  I'm not suggesting cutting back on research, but distributing the research budget effectively. We need some long-term research into cancer cures, but not at the cost of the lives of people who can be saved today or in the very near future.
- renata 13y ago
  Surely at some point it makes sense to cut your losses and redirect funding to research on other diseases. It's just an ROI calculation.
  - hueving 13y ago
    Only if there is nothing coming out of this research. Many things are often discovered when looking for something else.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  It's not just that we haven't found a solution. Cancer is not a single condition - it's a multitude of different diseases with similar mechanisms and different causes. The cure for one type of cancer is usually ineffective for most other types. Frequently researchers have encouraging results on one set of patients that never happen again on another set. HIV is a relatively easy problem when compared to cancer.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

Fomite 13y ago

NCI is one of the best funded institutes in the NIH.