So, then what is your issue? Yes, breast cancer gets a lot of funding. I wasn’t aware you were just whining about it, I thought that perhaps you thought the inequality was some sort of problem that should be solved.
I’m sorry, but what in the hell are you talking about? Are you suggesting that anyone who posts on the dope doesn’t care about solving problems?
Mnemosyne, if you find yourself racing in Thunder Bay, pop on by our tent where you can have all the food and drink you want. And we won’t charge you a penny.
As far as the OP’s query goes, I think it comes down to a combination of a broad (snerk) base of people who are directly or indirectly affected by breast cancer and who therefore might want to get involved; a high survival rate leading to a significant number of survivors who can then get involved; a recovery that tends to be complete rather than leaving a person debilitated for a very long time and unable to get involved; and strong organizational ability by women who are already active in community networks and find it quite easy to get involved.
No, I’m suggesting that on this issue you apparently just want to whine about it. Maybe you don’t. In which case, do something. Or don’t. No skin off my back either way. But the reason breast cancer gets so much funding is because there is are a ton of people writing letters, marching, and being very visible. People are not marching for prostate cancer. They aren’t writing their congressman demanding more funding. They aren’t spending millions (probably billions) buying stupid shit where a small portion of the profits goes to research. Or putting stupid ribbons on their cars. Or, at least, they aren’t doing this things in populations big enough to matter. And that is what needs to change if you want equality in cancer research funding.
Someone upthread mentioned AIDS, which is another place we dumped a ton of funding in the late 1980 and 1990s due to activism. Far more than we would have for some disease that was killing gay men and drug addicts without the activism. That activism, and the funding that was related to it, has largely died off - in part because AIDS is now seen as “treatable” - in part because the gains in research haven’t been huge (where there have continued to be breakthroughs in breast cancer diagnoses and treatment that have kept that community going) but it was successful. Far more successful than a lot of people believed it could be given that it disproportionally affected gay men and IV drug users.
Although it seems that a lot of breast cancer experts are backing off on the idea of medical breakthroughs. Prevention - lowering risk - is the name of the breast cancer awareness game right now. Not new treatments, not “finding a cure.” We’ve even backed off on the idea of yearly mammograms. Lower obesity rates, lower alcohol consumption rates, get exercise, and we can lower breast cancer rates. And that’s awareness, not research funding.
A moronic assumption based on zero evidence. The fact that I am discussing an issue online does not mean I only want to whine about it.
You seem awfully sure of yourself. Since you have it all figured out, perhaps you could explain why the difference in funding was even more out of whack back before people started marching for breast cancer, putting ribbons on their cars, and buying pink boxes of Cheerios.
Also, since people aren’t marching for Prostate Cancer, and that is why it doesn’t get as much funding, perhaps you could explain why is gets a disproportionate amount of funding when compared to several other types of cancer? Maybe visibility isn’t the only thing at play here.
No it isn’t, but it is one factor, and a big one. And its the one people gripe about - and are griping about in this thread. That breast cancer gets all the PR - but they get all the PR because breast cancer activist really work the PR.
One other factor in research funding is bang for the buck. Some cancers are so aggressive that they are hard nuts to crack. Its “better” to improve the survival rate for “easy” to “cure” cancers. Prostate is apparently one of them, as are several forms of breast (although not all, some breast cancers are aggressive - which may be another factor). Lung tends to be one of the hard ones. Blood cancers are really hard.
Another factor is age at which they strike. Cancers that disproportionally target younger people tend to see more funding. Also how much lifestyle has to do with getting cancer. Lung has always been a hard sell because if you ignore the smokers in the population, its a much rarer cancer. Many lung cancer victims “gave it to themselves.” Lung also had its day of popularity and has been decreasing as a cause du jour (I used to work for the American Lung Society - 25 years ago), where breast cancer is probably right now at the peak of its popularity as a cause. But what is happening right now with breast cancer - the new emphasis on lowering risk - is what happened to lung cancer 40 years ago - and one of the reasons that support for lung cancer research went down - because we started throwing money at prevention.
The AIDS ability to gather resources and attention was not missed. Other ailments have copied the pattern . Using celebrities, getting lots of sympathetic type victims and organizing community action works quite well.
My WAG: because it far too often kills young, still attractive, women and most cancers, in particular prostate cancer, kills old farts like me. I don’t see why you have to look for things like, “Well nobody cares when men die” when that explanation is available.
There are some women (and men) out there who are quite bothered by the whole “pinkwashing” movement. I know that it’s always bugged me in some way but I could never quite put my finger on why. I didn’t think too deeply about the “why” mostly because it’s too burdensome in non-critical-thinking America to disparage in any way something that, to Joe Six-Pack (Special Pink Can Edition! *Won’t You Please Help?*®) is nothing but sweetness, light, and angel kisses.
It’s hard enough taking a stand against organized religion or the Tea-Bagging, tunnel-visioned, “America: Love It Or Leave It (To Beaver)!” crowd… I haven’t felt like scraping my nails down *this *blackboard as well! Fortunately for me, other people have managed to articulate *their *concerns with this “pinkwashing” quite nicely.
Kim Zielinski, a person with breast cancer had this to say in a Boston Globe article:
Breast Cancer Action, an advocacy group has a “Think Before You Pink” campaign that comes down against most of the corporate “pinkwashing” as a cynical marketing ploy:
Barbara Brenner from Breast Cancer Action:
(The above quote is from someone’s Facebook copy of the original interview on NaturalNews.com. I used this link because you had to register to read the original interview in its entirety.)
Barbara Ehrenreich, a noted feminist author, in a 2001 speechasked:
I think because it is more common and affect badly women and they die or lose a beautiful part of them.
So most fundraising campaign held their festival to support those strong women.
Race For the Cure