Cancer Researchers Play It Safe

Why is progress in cancer research so painfully slow? According to an article in the NYTimes by Gina Kolata, the blame falls on the system used today to fund research. Grant monies are directed at studies that are likely to make small, incremental improvements, at best.

From my vantage as physician-survivor, it seems we can't see the forest for the trees. So before launching into discussions on why today's research system is in trouble and what we can do about it, let's take a step back and review a few fundamental truths:

• Information obtained through science-based research is more valuable – closer to the truth, more reproducible, more predictable – than information derived through guessing, intuition, anecdote, observation and retrospective analysis.
• Well-funded, good quality research is the only way to improved disease prevention and care.
• Key discoveries often take place unexpectedly in unfettered research settings.
• Research must be free to go down blind alleys to find the paths to better care.
• Researchers must be adequately funded to carry out their studies.

Once these five facts become common knowledge, we'll be in a better position to tackle the complex interplay of politics and economics that is applying brakes to the wheels of progress. 

So gather 'round, Healthy Survivors. Share this post and let's get talking about effective ways to teach the public and politicians the facts of life about research.

Comments

[Doug]

Seems like the grant awarders are afraid to fail. In science and engineering, failure is an important part of success. Perhaps the people making the funding decisions have forgotten that?

[Wendy S. Harpham, M.D.]

Really good comment, Doug. It has to make one wonder this: What drives the decision-makers in the grant-granting process?

Maybe one of the physician-bloggers who reads this blog can help enlighten us.

With hope, Wendy

[Felicity Lenes]

Basic science research does tend to be evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, but as our fund of knowledge increases, so does our understanding of the mechanisms of both health and disease. Because incremental improvements don't pay off commercially most of the time, but still are important steps to potential breakthroughs, the NSF and NIH (most notably) fund those endeavors. Although I agree that grant-giving is an imperfect and bewildering process, government agencies do enlist respected experts in various fields to make decisions about which proposals show the most promise.