Cancer is so widespread that it touches us all in some way. Either you have lost a loved one or friend to cancer, you know someone who is afflicted—or you, yourself might be in the throes of battling some kind of cancer. It’s everywhere. Without getting into the debate as to why cancer rates appear to be rising, at least we can take solace in the research that we hope will one day result in a cure.
But perhaps that day may never happen. And recent events involving cancer research and fundraising have raised some doubts as to the effectiveness—and worth—of the cancer machine.
The New York Times recently chronicled the rise and fall of Dr. Anil Potti, a cancer researcher at Duke University Medical Center. Dr. Potti and colleagues had undertaken promising studies on genomic testing for molecular traits of cancerous tumors, and determining which chemotherapy treatment would be most appropriate.
Lung cancer patient Juliet Jacobs had a lot to gain and everything to lose, to that promise. Jacobs was part of the Duke University study, hoping for a breakthrough that would prolong her life.
Instead, the promising research was discredited due to the discovery of errors. Four gene signature papers were retracted, three trials at Duke were shuttered and the lead researcher resigned.
Juliet Jacobs died a few months following treatment that promised much but proved ineffective. Her family has launched a lawsuit, as have the relatives of other similarly doomed patients who had high hopes from the Duke research, since dashed.
Then, there’s the controversy in Canada over the allocation of fundraised dollars to research, compared with other needs of an apparently ravenous cancer machine.
A consumer advocacy arm of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation last month looked at the financial records of the Canadian Cancer Society, following a complaint from a cancer researcher that research dollars appear to be harder to get—even though more people are Read the rest of this entry »