Why should we give to cancer charities?

122>They usually fund university scientists who are paid to do research anyway, and I am not sure who else they fund. Is there not enough market incentive for big pharma to be looking for a cure? If so, then why are people always trying to raise money for cancer research? Isn't that like giving charity to Bill Gates to find new anti-viral software?
Reply:First of all, giving to cancer charities is not only for research. Depending on the charity, money is also used for awareness campaigns and providing assistance to patients and their families.





If you have real concerns about where the money goes, research the charities' cost to raise a dollar through GuideStar or Charity Watch.





I think there would be more financial incentive in keeping people "sick."
Reply:cause its better than spending our money on hookers?
Reply:Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in the country. A cure would do wonders for our life expectancies. Many researchers at public universities depend on grants to provide both their funding for research and for their salary. Without funding, the researcher would lose her/his job.
Reply:University scientists are not the only ones doing research, there are many independant labs %26amp; groups that do research new cancer drugs and possible cures.


The American Cancer Society also provides many local benefits to cancer patients which include free wigs %26amp; mastectomy supplies, free rides to and from cancer treatments, free hotlines and no matter where you live you can find access to these programs.
Reply:There is a statistic that 90% of all *new* discoveries occur in academia - ie, universities.





The issue here is one of priority. Pharamaceutical companies are - naturally - interested in making a profit. And new drug discoveries are amazingly expensive to get. From 10,000 possible drugs, on average, *one* will make it to the clinic. And you have still had to pay for all the development of the other 9,999.


Universities on the other hand - though they *are* worried about keeping the funding flowing - do not worry about profit as such. They are more interested in making the new discoveries, and don't really care how much it costs, or how long it takes.


So, effectively, the Pharmaceutical companies buy useable discoveries off the universities. This benefits both sides, and means that each can get on with doing the part of the work they are really interested in.





And, sadly, university scientists are not "paid to do research anyway". I am a university research scientist - and I have three years of funding at the moment. This means that I am paid (by a large funding body) to do my research for three years. After then, I'll need to get another source of funding. The university do not actually pay me: the money comes to me from the funding body.


Remember that universities, unlike companies, are not normally profit-making concerns, and do not have much of a source of income for research except the money they get given by charities and governments.
Reply:I think I know where you are going with this. Read your links--pretty interesting to know that DuPont makes not only many cancer causing chemicals, but also chemotherapies, and Astro-Zeneka (sp?) not only manufactures mammogram machines, but promotes breast cancer awareness month, emphasising that all women should get screened, though many countries have stopped allowing this for women under 50 (and even after then, its validity is dodgy). In short, cancer charities seem to collude with business when they focus on funding high tech cures instead of preventing cancers linked to pollution and chemicals (which most probably are).