> ... perhaps the problem is not that drugs are being developed for rare cancers (which does not harm patients in any way that I can see), .... I don't think t

> ... perhaps the problem is not that drugs are being developed for rare cancers (which does not harm patients in any way that I can see), .... I don't think the article explains this very well. The idea seems to be that if the money weren't spent on a goal that is unlikely to be met (getting a drug approved for a rare cancer), then it could be spent on a goal that is more likely (getting a drug approved for a more common cancer). What "hurts patients" is that the latter is not happening. Dolgin is essentially claiming that if the former happened less, then the latter could happen more. This might be true to some extent, but it is a fallacy -- often seen in discussions of governmental funding -- that if some money is not spent on item A, then that same amount will be available for item B. On the contrary, the emotional impact or political timeliness of item A might be what scared up the money in the first place. Furthermore, even the money is still available, the people who decide how to spend it might choose to spend it on options other than item B. In any case, the general principle of targeting funding at projects that are actually likely to help people, seems to be a good one.