
Dear Mr. President: Please stop with these science “moonshots” - Deinos
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/dear-mr-president-please-stop-with-these-science-moonshots/
======
aurizon
As we now know, cancer can have as many variants as we have genes. We are
fortunate that is does not quite do that, the number of cancer variants is far
fewer than the number of genes. That said, all cancers are caused by some sort
of gene malfunction, and this leads to thousands of causes - and cures. Some
cures were easy, and have been done, and some are far more difficult to cure.
To liken a "cure for cancer" to a "moonshot", means that the President speaks
from a lack of understanding. He does not know there will never be a "cancer
moonshot" \- a single cure. While he may be a good politician, if his lack of
technical knowledge about cancer and it's causes/cures is similar to his lack
of knowledge about other technical matters, like semiconductors, copyrights,
patents etc. is similarly inadequate, it means that reform in these areas of
research and IP will not arrive during his tenure.

~~~
gus_massa
I agree. But the number is bigger, because you must calculate the combinations
of the genes that may fail. IIRC, usually only one gene failing is not enough.

The best easy explanation I found is in this comic:
[http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1162](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1162)

------
EvanPlaice
They're just doing what politicians do. Joe Biden experienced a personal
tragedy. Instead of accepting defeat, they turn the tragedy around into a
platform for promoting new policies.

It's similar to how most famous comedians struggle with crippling depression.
The best humor isn't crafted from some precise 'funny formula.' It comes from
disassociating and learning to laughing/joke about the same crazy shit in life
that was driving you mad.

\-----

Unfortunately, politicians don't actually do anything except write policies
that enable others to do the work. They tend to have a skewed perspective on
what is and isn't possible. Funding isn't the issue, science is.

I used to know somebody (ie SD is weird) who works directly on the bleeding
edge cancer research. The next generation of treatments will target specific
classes of cancers based on characteristics of the cancer cells; then,
reprogram the immune system to attack those characteristics.

If chemo is the equivalent of dropping a nuke, medication the equivalent of
dropping napalm, the new approach will be like building an army to overthrow a
rebel uprising.

If a treatment works as expected, it will only work for a specific class of
cancer. As another comment already pointed out, cancer is a class of diseases
so there'll never be one cure.

Either way, science takes time. Unlike software where an order of magnitude
improvement can sometimes be gained by using a better algorithm or better
architecture. Scientific research requires brute force. Nobody is going to
sprinkle unicorn dust (ie money) on the problem to make scientists magically
discover a cure tomorrow. The biotech research industry is already flush with
money and using the best technology that industry has to offer.

This article absolutely hits the nail on the head.

~~~
nooron
I have a copy of a book called the Death of Cancer. It is written by one of
the best oncologists in history. I think his book would strongly suggest the
contrary -- that ample funding, paired with organizational & regulatory
improvements -- would put "curing cancer" within reach.

Human success in treating cancer so far has largely depended on government
support, and the text does this story justice.

Want the copy? I'll mail it to you free of charge.

