Medical Research

[Gooble]

Right, I know this topic and my viewpoint are going to be hugely controversial, and so I shall start of by saying that I had Meningitis B when I was 17 and almost died, my grandma has had Alzheimer's disease since I was 8 and my friend has testicular cancer, so I have first hand experience of the suffering caused by disease.

I would also like to apologise for any harm or distress this may cause. I'm now starting to think this may not be such a good idea to post this, but if you can't post it anonymously in an internet forum, where can you do it?

Right, to the point. I personally believe that medical research is a waste of money. The war against disease is undoubtedly going to be an ongoing struggle which will end when humans become extinct. There will be constant evolution of disease, be it strains of diseases that are resistant to the cures and vaccines, or brand new diseases, potentially more horrifying than ones we have wiped out.

Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't continue to spend money on existing cures, vaccines and medication that can help control diseases. What's the point in letting our current resources go to waste, right? But I believe that funds, millions and millions of $/£ of funds could be better spent on clean water provision, the aforementioned cures, vaccines and medication (and other preventative measures) for third world countries, basically to help third world countries out of poverty. Or indeed funds that could be spent on any charitable cause.

So what are your thoughts on the matter?

Edit: Yes, I am well aware that without medical research I would have probably died. But I'm no special case. I'm also aware that without it, millions would have died from diseases that could have been treated if the research had been done, and if we stop now future diseases may wipe out many millions. Now this is going to sound very VERY cold and heartless, but the world is greatly overpopulated...and I'm sure a decent number of human beings will have a natural resistance to the disease.

 

[Lord_Of_Plum]

I agree with the money going to other causes. But that most certainly does not mean research should stop. We should be doing the most with the money we have now while furthering the possibilities in the future.

 

[Ago Iterum]

I don't quite understand, you say medical research is a waste of money, but you also say that money could be spent on vaccines and medication. They have to research and create this medication before it can be established.

 

[Flishiz]

We can't just stagnate ourselves now. As we as a species develop, so do the diseases that hurt us. Constant development is absolutely necessary.

 

[Bagaloo]

What would happen when a new disease shows up, and no one is researching how to combat it?

Its true that medical research can lead to negative outcomes. The constant use of antibiotics is created stronger and stronger strains of bacteria.

But medical research already created many of the cures you have mentioned should continue, as Max pointed out above.

Whilst I would agree that more funding should go to sourcing clean water and spreading around current cures and treatments, I think there are better places it could come from than cutting funding to research that could potentially save more lives.

 

[oliveira8]

Its not a waste of money. There needs to be research for a cure to happen.

Considering my heart condition which snatched half of my life in one day and due to incompetence from several doctors to not stop it earlier on, I would like to be more research on that field...but theres no funding...

 

[oktalist]

Seems like an incredibly wonky point of view based on unfounded assumptions and an ignorance of medicine, biochemistry, scientific advancement and indeed the machinations of the world as a whole.

There will be constant evolution of disease, be it strains of diseases that are resistant to the cures and vaccines, or brand new diseases, potentially more horrifying than ones we have wiped out.

That may be true of viral and bacterial infections, but not cancer, Alzheimer's or so many other conditions.

And it's entirely conceivable that research could one day lead us to a general cure for all pathogenic conditions.

But I believe that funds, millions and millions of $/£ of funds could be better spent on clean water provision, the aforementioned cures, vaccines and medication (and other preventative measures) for third world countries, basically to help third world countries out of poverty. Or indeed funds that could be spent on any charitable cause.

I can think of so many other resource sinks from which money could be redirected for this. The defence budget, for starters.

I would also like to make the point that funding research into mental illnesses like depression/schizophrenia etc. should continue, as these are not directly diseases, they cannot be contracted.

Are not contracted pathogenically, you mean. Like cancer and Alzheimer's and all the rest. Really, there's no reason to classify mental illness as different from any other illness; the only difference, broadly speaking, is the organ that they affect: the brain. "Disease" just means any abnormal condition.

I don't mean to insult you but I think you're talking nonsense.

We can't just stagnate ourselves now. As we as a species develop, so do the diseases that hurt us. Constant development is absolutely necessary.

This.

 

[Raven's Nest]

It is highly controversial I agree, but if there's one corner of the internet this might be able to discussed maturely it's here. So any flame throwing from here on will be considered immature.

Gooble, I share your views on this matter to an extent. You are stating some diseases should not be cured. This I agree with. But stopping the research full stop is something I do not agree on. Please allow me to explain my reasoning however...

It has taken me a little while to come to the conclusion that cancer should not be cured.

What follows is my theory, compiled only from my opinion and observations of the world, backed up with a few facts from Wikipedia. Feel free to correct me as necessary. By the way i'm only writing this matter of factly to keep the same tone.


Diseases have come and gone throughout human history.

The black death, the bubonic plague, cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis and so on. Most of these diseases are still found in the world, however for the developed countries, the chance of an epidemic breaking out are very slim. The cure's for these virus were relatively easy to procure. The result of which means whenever a recent outbreak occurs, we have the knowledge and power to, at the very least, limit the spread.

Mother Nature has always hated humans and so accordingly she will always fight back. We've unbalanced the eco-system beyond repair it would seem, with our destruction of habitats, ozone layer removal, over-fishing and pollution. To keep the world in balance, Mother Nature needed to find a way to balance the earth again. This is evident in the fact that diseases exist.

The earliest written identification of cancer was discovered as far back as 1600 BC. And it has had us stumped ever since. We have since understood what cancer is, how it spreads, where it affects, who it affects (everyone).

But the big question is why does cancer exist?

The answer in my entirely un-medical opinion is simple. A 'weapon' to help control the number of creatures on this planet, in order to keep the eco-system in balance. It's no secret that we have nearly all but consumed the earth's natural resources. We have inhabited nearly every corner of the world. Global warming might shave a few miles off our coastline, but what happens when we physically have no more room to grow?

Cancer causes about 13% of all deaths. According to the American Cancer Society, 7.6 million people died from cancer in the world during 2007. Thats more than any killed in a single year of warfare.

Is this tragic? Yes,

Does it warrant prevention? Perhaps,

Is cancer evil? No

Is disease evil? Questionable...

Anthrax...AID's...Designed by humans, to kill humans...These are evil.

But cancer? That's here to stay i'm afraid, just like it was supposed to.

EDIT: Okay maybe not AIDS but it was dramatic don't you think?

 

[Seldon2639]

The thing is that the cost of medicine (research, development, and implementation) decreases in cost over time and usage. The exceedingly low cost of current vaccines is largely due to how front-loaded the costs of medicine are. The second pill costs three cents to make, the first pill costs $500 million. The vaccines and cures you're talking about spending money on because the cost/benefit ratio is so skewed toward the benefit treat diseases which were all once considered unconquerable. It took years of research (and lots of money) to find a vaccine for polio, or smallpox, or make penicillin into a usable drug. You're basically saying "what we've got now is good enough", but it really isn't.

@ Ravens_Nest:

Dramatic indeed. Technically, of course, anthrax already existed in the environment before humans tried to weaponize it, and HIV was in no way a human invention. Beyond that, your argument is somewhat specious. The Black Plague ceased because the portion of the population which had a resistance to it survived while the portion without a resistance died off. I agree with you that cancer has existed for a long time, but the current research into Signal Transduction Inhibitors is really promising. The genetic decay of body cells is hard to stop (apoptosis is, after all, what leads to death in general), and the human body isn't built for forever.

That said, the earth doesn't have a consciousness, and disease is mindless and has the sole purpose of self-replication. If diseases were only used to "cull" humanity when we began to expand, why does disease exist in animal populations as well? The major difference is that modern humans have a recourse against disease. We stop disease, where animal populations simply have to accept it. But, diseases exist which affect all manner of creature, it's not a "weapon" against humanity, it's another form of life that's just doing it's thing.

Any animal which survives well into old age breaks down (oftentimes, it's cancer). The reason cancer exists so prevalently in modern humanity (specifically in developed countries) is because we've stopped most other forms of death. This, not to mention the higher populations, would lead to higher instances of the kinds of diseases we've not stopped. But in the same way we beat polio when it was considered unconquerable, and we eradicated smallpox, and by god can cure syphilis, we'll figure out a way to knock cancer out of the game (at which point we'll die of something else, since everything eventually decays and dies).

 

[watchman 2353]

Medicine is a sound business. Even if we doped all government research, private would continue. There is a 14% increase in medical spending for every 10% increase in GDP. It is the only business that reported massive gains over the last year. It is a sound business, people will always pay for health. In short, it makes sound economic seance, which is what we need now.

 

[watchman 2353]

Quote: Okay maybe not AIDS but it was dramatic don't you think?

Aids is all but cured. Great strides in retroantivirals have made the disease suppressible if caught early. Essentially, If it is caught before it is AIDS, it isn't a problem.

 

[ZeroMachine]

As diseases evolve, so must our research. It's not a waste at all. It's one of the things wasted money should go to instead of things like over-payed athletes and the like.

EDIT: Bah, things have already been put so weel in this thread... I wish I could contribute more, but I don't understand enough about research to really give any input other than "I disagree".

... Well, I could also say that without medical research, my girlfriend would be pissed- that's what she's planning on doing for a career =P

 

[Raven's Nest]

@ Ravens_Nest:

current research into Signal Transduction Inhibitors is really promising. The genetic decay of body cells is hard to stop (apoptosis is, after all, what leads to death in general), and the human body isn't built for forever.

I would be the first to admit I have no idea how cancer research is coming along. As stated my arguements come from my observation of the world around me. It is nice to know we may be able to cure cancer. Everybody knows somebody who has died at the hands of it, myself included.

That said, the earth doesn't have a consciousness, and disease is mindless and has the sole purpose of self-replication. If diseases were only used to "cull" humanity when we began to expand, why does disease exist in animal populations as well? The major difference is that modern humans have a recourse against disease. We stop disease, where animal populations simply have to accept it. But, diseases exist which affect all manner of creature, it's not a "weapon" against humanity, it's another form of life that's just doing it's thing.

To quote Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurrasic Park "Life will find a way"

I don't honestly believe mother nature exist's as any form of sentient being, but perhaps it is my view on the world which allows me to view such diseases and events as being fated. Cancer has as much right to be here as we do.

*Adopts Alec Guiness personna*

So what i've told you is true. From a certain point of view.

Any animal which survives well into old age breaks down (oftentimes, it's cancer). The reason cancer exists so prevalently in modern humanity (specifically in developed countries) is because we've stopped most other forms of death. This, not to mention the higher populations, would lead to higher instances of the kinds of diseases we've not stopped. But in the same way we beat polio when it was considered unconquerable, and we eradicated smallpox, and by god can cure syphilis, we'll figure out a way to knock cancer out of the game (at which point we'll die of something else, since everything eventually decays and dies).

I'm all for optimism. I consider myself an idealist, a pacifist and a spiritual man. But my pessemistic nature is a bit of a *****. I'll believe a disease is cured when nobody has died from it for at least a hundred years...

 

[JMeganSnow]

"Our" resources? Excuse me? Are you the owner of a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical company? No? Then let's not hear any such word as "our". The money belongs to the people who earned it, and they're entitled to spend it however they want.

If you want to go to school for 25 years to become an expert in pathology and microbiology and immunology and all the other things you need and then invent a cure for cancer, make it rich, and spend your OWN money on handing out vaccines, go for it. Otherwise, there's nothing more pathetic than a would-be social planner telling people whose achievements he can't even begin to equal what they "ought" to be doing with their money.

 

[Bofus Teefus]

Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't continue to spend money on existing cures, vaccines and medication that can help control diseases. What's the point in letting our current resources go to waste, right? But I believe that funds, millions and millions of $/£ of funds could be better spent on clean water provision, the aforementioned cures, vaccines and medication (and other preventative measures) for third world countries, basically to help third world countries out of poverty. Or indeed funds that could be spent on any charitable cause.

Food for thought. I get to help out with different studies constantly, and get to review a couple different full-blown research articles each month. Here's what I generally think, as someone who is involved.

Research is good. Less than 60-70 years ago in the US, people were dying of polio, smallpox, and others. Through a formerly aggressive vaccination campaign, those are no longer a problem here, and smallpox is no longer a problem worldwide. There are inarguable (though nothing is inarguable on The Escapist) benefits to doing research that involve our quality of life, and some of the most dramatic differences can be seen by comparing causes of death between early and mid-20th century in the US.

On the other hand, look at our good friend Y. pestis, or plague (not to be mistaken for 10 plagues.) What happened to it? Every once in awhile in a place like Los Angeles, you will have a bubonic plague case report, but no real outbreaks like in the good ol' days. The reason? Public sanitation. This is a disease that is spread mostly from mites living on rats to human, and can become a respiratory infection (which is where you get the huge outbreaks.) We could have pumped zillions into finding a cure by acting on the disease or the infected people, but as long as we don't let the garbage build up too bad, it isn't a problem- sanitation keeps us from living with rats.

The bit that I quoted is solid gold- common sense measures like clean water generally have a large impact on quality of life through prevention of disease. Still, though, when you were recovering from meningitis, weren't you glad someone had done the research to figure out how to treat people with it?