BBC Focus Magazine

[Shadowwolf]

So James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA and Nobel Laureate for same, at the European Science Conference (ESOF 2012) has opined that a cure for cancer is but five years away if we really put our minds to it. To be honest I think that's a bit far fetched.

For starters, cancer as a disease whilst often being lumped together under that single identifier is anything but the monolithic problem it is often simply portrayed as. The word 'cancer' at its most basic refers to situations where cells go rogue but covers a plethora of disease affecting different parts of the anatomy with varying causes and various treatments along with incurable types. I could well be wrong but I'm unaware of any base commonality found in all forms of cancer that would lend itself to an across the board treatment. With research you might find a cure for one and be a step closer to eradicating the problem, but all? Seems somewhat unlikely and five years to find such a commonality a bit optimistic even with unlimited funding.

He had some other troubling statements* related to this such as, "...if we could short-circuit processes, and test drugs on people who had terminal cancer, a cure could be found quickly." Undoubtedly there is some level of needless red-tape but much of what exists is there to ensure that research is carried out in an ethical manner that does not treat people as disposable guinea pigs just because they're terminal. There must be sufficient foundational research to justify human level trials, that is to say, there must be reasonable grounds to suppose that any given treatment can do what it is supposed to do and researchers are not just stabbing blindly in the dark. That it also has as little risk of causing death or egregious side effects as can be reasonable expected in any drug / treatment entering human trials. I suppose it might help if terminal cases could sign acquiescence to such procedures fully cognisant of the risks, but I thought this was already the case. Other processes could be the unavoidable grant application process, there is only so much money and lots of people looking for it, no real way to short-circuit this.

"He said the world needed a stronger incentive and he criticised what he called the cancer industry which he suggested was all about money."

I'm not sure what he means by incentive, unless cancer becomes a contagious disease and then an epidemic it's not going to be any worse or threatening than it already is. But "cancer industry?" That's the kind of language I expect from the alt-med crowd and their regular decrying of scary 'n' evil Big Pharma. He seems to miss that a goodly amount of cancer research is carried out through government science funding and other donations in universities, hospitals and institutes often specifically aimed at cancer research. These are not controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. What research the pharmaceutical industry does is about money, they are first and foremost a business and research costs a lot of money, money they generally wish to get back. They may do many less than stellar things like zealously protecting patents and high prices but I don't see anything to suggest that they're making an industry out of cancer, sitting on some global cure. The drugs designed are not merely palliative care drugs but ones designed to kill specific cancers; dead people have no more need for any drugs, live people make better customers. I don't think there is anything to be made by needlessly demonising pharmaceutical companies, certainly nothing that will further humanities struggle with cancer type diseases.

* - These are not his specific words but those attributed to him by local national news reporting from RTE. It is obvious that they have attempted to convey his basic and main points thus potentially missing qualifying information or other pertinent points, I only go on what was reported.

[Lateralman]

Whatever form it takes, breakthroughs in medicine should be available to everyone.

Regardless of nationality, race or social status and paid for by the worlds unified collective governments with a controlled cap placed on those profiteering from the sick.

Helping others is a vocation of the heart and should always remain so.

[Shadowwolf]

Whatever form it takes, breakthroughs in medicine should be available to everyone.

Unfortunately we don't live in a world even remotely like that yet and I don't see it transpiring anytime soon.

Regardless of nationality, race or social status and paid for by the worlds unified collective governments with a controlled cap placed on those profiteering from the sick.

But there is no unified, collective of global governments, we've a collection of nations largely out for themselves and many of their members receive generous campaign contributions from a great many corporate interests. Even without any specified quid pro quo, if a guy gives you a lot of financial support you tend to think well of them whenever they crop up.

As for a controlled cap, it'll be a very high cap because research tends to cost an awful lot of money, it's not pocket change and if an outfit cannot get what seems to be a reasonable return on investment then they won't bother with the research to begin with.

Helping others is a vocation of the heart and should always remain so.

In part but for a long time there's been a lot more to it and a number of involved parties are there mainly for the money. Even the alties despite their PR veneer of being natural and benign are solely about the money, but unlike the rest they get to keep more what with no research overheads. Medicine and health services are incredibly expensive you just don't see how expensive it is because of your subsidised health system.

[Lateralman]

True there is no one unified government but that should not prevent nations working together to address this problem. The well-being of their own people has to be any government’s priority. Right?

Otherwise, you have no people fit for work and no people to govern. Right?

More monies would be available for research if there were a global collective funding it. Right?

If death and taxes are the only certainties in life, then increase the tax a little to extend life. Right?

Most countries already have the medical infrastructure in place paid for by generations of their people. Right?

The only catch is you have your people healthy in order to work in order to continue to pay tax so you can modernise and that again is another priority of any government. Right?

If she were here, I wonder what Marie Curie would have to say about all this. Would she think our approach to helping one another was...wrong?

[Shadowwolf]

True there is no one unified government but that should not prevent nations working together to address this problem. The well-being of their own people has to be any government’s priority.

No it shouldn't but there are many factors in international relations beyond population health and so far they don't cooperate to that degree. As for priority, it's a big one but not to the expense of everything else.

Otherwise, you have no people fit for work and no people to govern.

The system as is provides plenty of fit people for work and to govern, in fact even in far poorer health systems there are still sufficient people to work and govern.

More monies would be available for research if there were a global collective funding it.

Maybe, perhaps they donate less or cease internal funding.

If death and taxes are the only certainties in life, then increase the tax a little to extend life.

Current system already does that, we now live longer than we used to.

Most countries already have the medical infrastructure in place paid for by generations of their people.

Some do, is there a point in that? That's a rhetorical question btw.

As for Marie Curie, don't see why she'd be brought up, however, the OP doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not governments should work together or how nations health services should be organised so leave that wistful pondering aside.

[Lateralman]

Fair enough. We all have to earn a living.

Money aside the odd thing is that the people that profit from breakthroughs such as this probably would not be here without past breakthroughs in modern medicine.

Personally, I think if we have the ability to cure people of this terrible disease, then we should use it to cure, whatever the cost.

Together humans can overcome any barrier with the application of the heart and applied thought.

[Shadowwolf]

In order a live a healthier life we need to change our life style I really appreciate and congratulate Watson for such speech.

[MikeG]

I believe that many of the diseases we currently face today, including cancer, could be eradicated. I tend to agree that big pharma would prefer half measures that provide expensive therapy, and a situation that guarantees a fresh supply of customers to ensure management bonuses. The first company to develop a permanent solution in the form of a one-shot vaccine will essentially have shot the goose that lays the golden egg. With todays understanding of the DNA molecule, and our ability to develop custom gene therapy, 5 years is a reasonable timeline to tackle cancer.

[Shadowwolf]

Whilst I would agree that given time and resources many of the health issues facing us could be eradicated, all of them is a gargantuan task and likely to be replaced by issues arising from modern and future living. It is certainly not a five year endeavour.

I also have issue with the 'Big Pharma' is sitting on the cure or just not looking for it, smacks too much of the conspiracy accusations leveled at 'Big Oil' who allegedly sits on amazing engine designs that run on water or are free energy systems. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy do cure certain types of cancer and early operations after early detection has similar results. They're not foolproof and often not entirely pleasant but neither are they half measures, they do have a success rate and are not just palliative care regimens. Living people purchase products for other ailments, the dead do not and thus I cannot see any impetus for suppressing cures in favour of half measures. Nor is there any evidence to suggest this conspiracy of profit seeking inaction or active suppression.

Cancer is a general term, we all know what it refers to but we should not forget that there are many forms of it for which we have, to the best of my knowledge, found no common precursor. You may light on a pretty much guaranteed fix for one type but that will do you little good with most of the rest.

With regards to DNA and genetics, well unfortunately that's been heavily oversold as some kind of imminent magic bullet for all kinds of everything. It will have its place but the chances are we're looking at a long research time for specific cancers and five years may be excessively optimistic just for that. There is little chance that five years would turn up an all cancer magic bullet even if we pumped massive resources into it.

[Thinker]

I'd be surprised if we find a cure by the end of my lifetime. As already stated, there are too many types of cancer out there for a "universal cure" to be found within five years.

I think we may advance on treatments and find ways to eradicate it at an early stage, but when cancer is in full swing it's left to the more conventional methods such as chemo.

I hope he's right though, as do millions of others!

[MikeG]

I'm no cancer expert, but I would suspect that if we could find the switch on the gene which is responsible for one type of cancer, and learn to turn to off, we will at least gain experience in identifying and controlling other switches for other forms of cancer. I see gene therapy as the way forward. Chemotherapy has a devastating effect on the body, with usually permanent damage inflicted.