Sorry, Laurel, my links were not right. All that posted was the related article. I have corrected it so that the lead article is there. Here is what I thought was most important about it:
"There also are unnecessary roadblocks. Research lurches from fad to fad — cancer viruses, immunology, genomics. Advocacy groups have lobbied and directed research in ways that have not always advanced science. And for all the money poured into cancer research, there has never been enough for innovative studies, the kind that can fundamentally change the way scientists understand cancer or doctors treat it. Such studies are risky, less likely to work than ones that are more incremental. The result is that, with limited money, innovative projects often lose out to more reliably successful projects that aim to tweak treatments, perhaps extending life by only weeks.
“Actually, that is the biggest threat,” said Dr. Robert C. Young, chancellor of the
Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “Every organization says, ‘Oh, we want to fund high-risk research.’ And I think they mean it. But as a matter of fact, they don’t do it.”
Hopeful
Linear Mode
