I have worked briefly in the field of cancer research (as a degree project). One of the things that struck me then about then was the number of different groups around the world who seemed to be doing the exact same work in direct competition with each other. The institution I worked at seemed much better funded than most areas of funding I’ve worked in since and more ready to spend funds on things that other research organisations wouldn’t consider.
Since then I have encountered many senior researchers who express the same opinion, that the amount of public funding flowing in to cancer research (especially in areas such as ovarian and breast cancer as well as childhood forms of cancer) is leading to the waste of resources which could be more profitably spent in other areas of medical research, some of which could advance rapidly with just a small increase in spending.
However my exposure to the field was brief and superficial, many of the researchers who I have talked to are working in the less popular areas of research and are not entirely impartial. I also know that many advances have been made in cancer research in the last few decades and that some areas that are currently attracting a lot of interest such as gene therapy and anti-angiogenic drugs hold a lot of promise for the future.
Are there any dopers out there who have more in depth knowledge of the field who could offer reassurance to the many people that I know who raise money for cancer research that their money is being well spent and would not be better off going to support research in other areas.
I have mixed feelings about your post. My background is cancer research (a field in which I received my PhD) in a university, which I have since shunned for the evils of corporate science.
You bring up some good points. Yes, there are labs spending duplicate money by researching the same things in direct competition. But, you have to understand the motivations of a university researcher. They aren’t motivated by personal money, as is obviated by the absolutely horrid payscale of a university researcher (you are about 40 years old before you are making 50 K per year. Before that it’s Ramen noodles for dinner and Netflix as your splurge for entertainment). What they are motivated by is plumage; everyone wants to have the brightest feathers in the room. Every researcher in a university is motivated to get their names on papers, both in order to get grant money, and so that when they walk into a room at a conference, they are “the p53 guy” or “the man in the field of ubiquitination”. So, the competition is necessary to keep these people working.
Now, that being said, there are huge money sucks in cancer research. Grant money is doled out in a fashion that eventually became one of the reasons I left the university. Money is not handed out for novel ideas as much as its given out because you are “the p53 guy”. Once you are established, you get grant money. How do you become “established”? By getting grant money. And round and round we go.
In other words, money is going to the people who are:
a) the best at writing grants.
b) the best at schmoozing with those who decide where the grant money goes.
I’ve said it before in another thread; the best research is NOT going on in academia anymore. Research has become too expensive, and too complicated to be performed at institutions as inefficient as a university. I went to a company because they do better science, and they do it faster.
Fiveyearlurker I know what you mean about the state of the academic research system I’m currently studying for my PhD and am experiencing a lot of frustration over this exact same thing, I had rather naive expectations over what would be involved in scientific research and where the priorities would lie, however that’s a whole seperate thread and one which will be in the pit if I ever start it.
I don’t think this was the problem though. While I was doing my project I met plenty of competent and genuinely dedicated researcher and if any thing the funds seemed to be sensibly spent (by academic standards).
I think the problems I saw were more a result of the fact that field is advancing on a fairly narrow front of research and consequently an awful lot of excess expertise and money was being thrown at doing the same thing over and over. Fully half of the people I have met who work in cancer research are engaged in trying to find better ways of getting genetic material into cell nuclei and all of them seemed to be going about it in more or less the same way
I dont really know where the money would be better spent, I don’t have the experience in other fields to know which would benefit the most from a sudden influx of cash. However I do know that some fields have made big leaps forward after a sudden infusion of cash and interest (often as a result of a high profile celebrity victim) I believe myasthenia gravis is a good example of this.
Does any one know what percentage of funds raised by the public for medical research goes to research cancer as opposed to other diseases?.
As I have said it’s quite possible I am entirely wrong in basing my assumptions on a few months work and the opinions of people who may have an axe to grind. Thats why I’d like to hear the opinions of anyone with more direct knowledge.
I might not be able to post again for a while (I’ve been having some problems with my home broadband connection) so if I don’t respond to any reply before monday - sorry
To some extent, there is value to the duplication of effort. Findings need to replicatable, and determining that is easier if there are other researchers who have worked on the same question using very similar methods.
Replicating is very different from competing. It is much easier to replicate an experiment after someone else has already worked out the parameters and generated the reagents necessary than it is for two labs to both do these things.