New effort to cure cancer will take more than money

In his recent address to Congress, President Obama announced that “we will launch a new effort to conquer a disease that has touched the life of nearly every American, including me, by seeking a cure for cancer in our time."

The American Cancer Society (ACS) reports that a little more than 565,000 Americans were killed by cancer in 2008. In 2005 that number was roughly 559,000 Americans. (1)

As a candidate, President Obama promised a doubling of funding for cancer research in order to provide for a cure, but "... last year, the NIH received approximately $5.57 billion for cancer research, so raising that to $6 billion represents a roughly 8 percent boost … [and] in order to double cancer research funding, Obama is going to need to get up to about $11 billion.” (2)

Senator Arlen Specter has long been a proponent of increased spending for cancer research. He recently said that cancer could be cured “… if the government spent $335 billion for the research.”(3) If Senator Specter's numbers are grounded in any kind of reality, and adjusting for inflation, that means that by the time I am nearly ninety we'd have something - if cancer doesn't get me first.

But I don't believe for a minute that doubling our spending will eliminate cancer in "our time." Not every problem can be solved by applying hope as a balm and cash as a cure. Some problems require structural change to make spending effective. Any "new effort" ought to be more than simply new spending levels.

We’ve been spending significant amounts on cancer research (~ $4.8 billion a year for the past five years) and over the last three the rate climbed by roughly 6,000 people. And yes, I know the population has been increasing, but the overall rate per 100,000 persons seems to have leveled off. (4)

My biggest fear is that we have institutionalized our search for a cure, and pumping more money into multiple bureaucratic foundations and agencies will no more yield a cure than quitting my job and going pro will result in my winning The Masters this year ... even if Tiger doesn’t play!

Google the number of foundations dedicated to eliminating cancer and you will see the money is too diluted to do the kind of good it could. It seems every millionaire and celebrity who has had a brush with, or lost a loved one to cancer has some kind of foundation or fundraiser, creating a tremendous waste of funds with a multiplication of administrative efforts.

To facilitate a "new effort," why don’t we pull the brightest researchers out of all those diverse foundations and build a National Cancer Task Force? Let’s give the Task Force the money and the mandate – and a time limit! Let's add the private contributions of the foundations to government spending. Let's limit the bureaucracy. Let's fast-track approval for research and approval. Let's look long and hard at the government oversight and reform it.

Of course, this would mean that we’d have to dismantle all the organizations currently seeking a cure and send most the administrators and fundraisers off to find work with other non-profit foundations. But then the hope for a cure would have merit and the money would be focused and could be effective.

And maybe, just maybe, that cure wouldn’t cost $335 billion. ____________________________________________
(1) Source: Cancer Statistics, 2008 (American Cancer Society) - Linked on this blog.
(2) Robert Farley, More money but a long way from doubling, PolitiFact.com
(3) Gardiner Harris, Specter, a Fulcrum of the Stimulus Bill, Pulls Off a Coup for Health Money, NY Times, 02.13.2009
(4) Source: Cancer Statistics, 2008 (ACS) - Note: From 193.9 in 1950 to 183.8 in 2005, an improvement of roughly 5% in 55 years!