Distribution of funds for research into treatments for deadly diseases

[mike3]

Hi.

I saw this post on a blog:

http://unimag.livejournal.com/105415.html

I wonder. What do you think? He talks about how that research into Alzheimer's disease treatment gets only like 3% of the funding for research into treatment for cancer, and that this makes "perfect *********** sense". What do you think? Even if it doesn't affect as many as cancer, aren't rates on the rise? Also, I heard the statistic that neurodegenerative disease in general (not just Alzheimer's, which is merely the most common of this whole group of diseases), will surpass cancer as 2nd leading cause of death by 2040 -- not long off at all! Is just "3%" of the funding for research for cancer a perfectly sensible amount, or is more warranted? Even if right now it's still not as high on the death-causing list as cancer, doesn't it seem like it should get a little more than just "3%", so even if it doesn't "make perfect *********** sense" to have it given as much funding as research into cancer treatment, might just "3%" also not make "perfect *********** sense"?

I'm also curious. From a technical standpoint, how come we have made more progress in treating cancer -- namely, we have people that have actually survived it -- yet nobody has been cured of these common neurodegenerative problems? What makes it so much more difficult to cure the latter, than the former, the former of which I've heard described as "the most complex disease known to man"?

Please make sure swearwords are not partially masked, as it prevents them being picked up by the autocensor. Either leave them as they are for the autocensor to pick up, or mask them completely.
Thank You.

[Rolfe]

There are many different types and causes of cancer, and we should no more lump them as one disease than we should lump Ebola with the common cold as "infections". There are also a fair number of different causes and types of neurodegenerative disease.

The fact is, CNS tissue, once destroyed, is very poor at regenerating, so degenerative diseases of the CNS are an absolute bitch. I don't know about numbers of death from cancers versus neurodegenerative conditions, but I do know that Alzheimers has a 100% fatality rate and neurodegenerative conditions in general are pretty incurable. On the other hand a lot of cancers are indeed curable.

Is this because cancer has had much more money spent on it over the years? To some extent, probably. However, it's also a fact that cancers are probably inherently easier to tackle than degenerative nervous conditions. Does that mean we should spend more on trying to get a handle on the latter, or does it mean that we'd just be throwing good money after bad?

I don't know, and I think it's a tough decision. My instinct is to think that more research would bring benefits though.

It's an interesting policy decision, and I think one of the main points you bring out is the necessity for it to be a public policy decision. That people who are genuinely knowledgeable about the subject should review the evidence and make informed recommendations. As opposed to the whole thing resting on which charity can make the best pitch for parting the public from its money.

Which is a point of view likely to be fiercely opposed by the right wingers and the libertarians, but there you go.

Rolfe.

[mike3]

So then it would seem the truth behind this one is much more complex than the "makes perfect *********** sense" claims expressed in this blog :)

[Ducky]

So then it would seem the truth behind this one is much more complex than the "makes perfect *********** sense" claims expressed in this blog :)

...is usually the case with the vast majority of blog entries. Natch.