I have been having a discussion with others about the level of dollars allocated to lung cancer research to support research and related programs. I knew that lung cancer dollars were small in comparison, but I could not verify them.
This same site, however, takes one to the NIH, etc funding summary. For those interested, funding for FY 2010 is proposed as follows: (1) brain cancer--$205 million; (2) breast--$769 million; (3) lung--$179 million; (4) cancer (appears to be generic or possibly total--can't really tell)--$6.0 billion; (5) colo-rectal--$290 million; (6) prostate--$309 million; (7) liver--$93 million; (8) cervical--$73 million; (9) ovarian--$102 million; and (10) uterine--$17 million.
Unfortunately, it is a bit difficult to get a grand total to each type of program because numerous other programs are being funded, which may (or may not) support cancer research and related programs.
No matter how you cut it, however, lung cancer funding appears low relative to other programs and level of incidence and mortalilty. I think a reasoned response is to formally request a reply from NIH, DOD, and NCI as to why this is the case.
Jim
Already a member? Sign in
Welcome to Inspire!
What - Inspire is a place where you can connect with people who share your health concerns and find information and advice in groups sponsored by organizations you know and trust.
Why - As a member you can use Inspire to let friends and family know how you're doing, contact others who share your health concerns, receive personalized updates and information about participating in surveys and clinical trials, and more.
How - Joining Inspire is completely free and usually takes less than a minute. Join now!
Cancer research funding
- By diamond
- Posted October 3, 2009 at 12:23 pm · 10 replies
- In Family members and caregivers
- Shared with the public
Explore topics in this discussion:
Cancer Prostate cancer Lung cancer Pancreatic cancer Breast cancer
10 replies
- Oldest first
- Newest first
- By diamond
- Posted October 3, 2009 at 1:19 pm
- Report post
When I posted about lung cancer research and programs dollars, I probably should have added some other basic info. The ACI estimates the number of new cancer cases in 2009 to be 713,220 for females and 766,130 for males. For females, breast cancer accounted for 27 % of new female cancer cases and lung cancer accounted for 14 % of new female cases. For males, prostate cancer accounted for 25 % of new male cancer cases and lung accounted for 15 %. The ACI estimates 26 % of all female cancer deaths will be caused by lung cancer in 2009, and 15 % will be caused by breast cancer. For males, they estimate that 30 % of all male cancer deaths will be associated with lung cancer and 9 % will be associated with prostate cancer. They also report numerous other related statistics.
Jim
- By cuddles53
- Posted October 3, 2009 at 2:38 pm
- Report post
I think all cancer is bad. I am in agreement we need more dollars for lung cancer. I have it, and so did my father and my husband. Of course I want to see it ended. I have a daughter I am scared to death will be high risk, but all cancer is bad, and many cancer drugs they are finding will help our own type of cancer, if they give it to us. There is much written about this with Dendreon company, when you can find the info it is hard to get right to the bottom of it, because I kept hitting things until I found a spot that I can not find now no matter what I try,. but i did find that years ago?? Unsure how many brain cancer in mice was eradicated by a vaccine called Dendreon's provenge, there was not enough money in it for any drug companies to buy into this, so it sat on a shelf, and guess what? The cancer with more money in funding in its pockets got the treatment! It is now being used to treat prostate cancer, more money in thier budget, God I hope I dont get shot for letting this out to all, but I am gonna tell you what I have read, and it was that. if you can find it, go for it, but anyway these mice were not the only live things cured, also man was cured, but it sat on a shelf. No money in it, no cure to reach the public, many now have died and unnecessarily. It is there for the making and the taking yet nobody comes forward and says it like it is. It could be a lie what I read, who knows?? That could explain why it is suddenly missing from the internet. But if you get my point, it is that breast cancer, colon cancer and other cancers can be cured with some of the same drugs if the drug companies would only trial them on these other cancers.. So it doesn't really matter if funding is all for breast cancer, what matters is that the funding they get, they so try it on some of our patients with lung cancer. I took a drug gemzar and it was used before for pancreatic cancer, and then tried on lung cancer, guess what ,, it worked, so do some of the breast cancer drugs, it is just to get the oncologists to use them on our people is the issue here. If all of the money went in one pot, I bet a cure would be here much faster, than segragating all of us into categories like a meat market! This is why I say our color for lung cancer should be red white and blue, representing United we stand and divided we fall, like our Country,. Put us all together and we get action, separate us all into groups and different categories we are defeating our entire purpose. Not only does it separate our mind sets on others like us with the same fears, doubts,and problems it keeps miracles from happening.
Just my opinion.
Sandy
- By diamond
- Posted October 3, 2009 at 3:07 pm
- Report post
Sandy
You make a lot of sense. I got into this dicussion because an individual was upset that more funding was going to breast cancer than to lung cancer. I indicated that we cannot simply look at funding because there are numerous other things going on. I also indicated that funding may be allocated for a wide variety of reasons, such as higher probability of cure, etc.
Jim
- By cuddles53
- Posted October 3, 2009 at 3:31 pm
- Report post
I would like to think all of us with any kind of cancer are all on the same page. We all face the same problem, being that ultimately an untimely death is more than just a probable. Irregardless of what kind of cancer any of us have, we are all more likely than the next guy to get another type of cancer.
I would love to see more funding for this cancer too. But I do think if it all went in one pot, it might be more beneficial to all of the cancers combined. I might be wrong, and am open to debate on it, but this is how I see things anyway.
I can't be bothered with statistics they mean nothing to me really, just numbers. I don't know how many are really in the statistics, i don't think anyone knows, this is why they make no sense to me. I am guessing on this and again could be wrong but i don't think you or I are in these statistics do you? Becasuse if we are, how would one go about getting info from us, nobody has asked me any questions, and also there are many who drop out of the system, they stop taking any treatmetbns so stats really don';t mean a whole lot anyway. since stats are what cause all of these problems maybe we should disregard them all together, at least for us as a single patient. They may be good for those in clinical trials testing new drugs, but to put us all in a category with stats for other things like research and grant money, there just is no truth in the numbers. Just meant to fool us all, and make it look good so someone still gets their paycheck each week. I know the stats certainly don't tell the truth when it comes to a persons longevity, i fit did none of us would be on this support site, we would all be dead and buried by now.
I think you are trying to do a good thing here, your way is just a little different than my way, but together maybe we can get our point across that we are all in this together. As I said I think our color should be more than one, Red, White, and Blue like our Flag.
United we stand, Divided we fall. I love this!
God bless Sandy
- By bayrealtor
- Posted October 4, 2009 at 1:08 am
- Report post
Jim,
good info on the stats! I was the individual upset your are talking about and the reason was due to your thoughts on putting more lung cancer funding to stop smoking ads. I think it should go to research and the govt. or tobacco compaines should be tasked to continue the ads. The most important hing for all to realize i sthat lung cancer is the #1 killer and the least funded. I have sent a letter to safeway asking them to set up and ask for donations for lung cancer during the month of Novembe but we need many others to ask as I am but one voice.
do not take my earlier comments as directed against you or your opinions Jim, I am just frustrated by the fact that many are going to die of this beast and the answer is not taking what little funding we have and spending it on stop smoking ads. My wife never somked, is 35 and diag. June 2008 stage 4 NSCLC. I want to see awareness that lung cancer is the deadliest cancer and least funded and have folks know we need funding which may someday lead to a cure.
Concerning those who smoked or past the age of 50,
I do not think they should be tossed aside and forgotten.
God bless,
Bill
- By cuddles53
- Posted October 4, 2009 at 10:17 am
- Report post
How about with stars and stripes but the colors reversed on each? My point manly being , the same as what you said divivding up the funds so we are United! These colors definitely stand for this...
- By diamond
- Posted October 4, 2009 at 12:14 pm
- Report post
I think there is merit in distributing the funds--but according to what. I do not do cancer research but I do marine research. I could do freshwater but I have too much vested capital in marine related research. I wonder about the ability and interest of cancer researchers to conduct research on cancers outside their primary field. I imagine they would require new chemicals, new labs, new techs, and new equipment. They also might be very far down the learning curve on some cancers.
I really would like to know how NIH, etc, decides on the allocation of research dollars. I guess I could check the large budget item--cancer--to see how those dollars have been allocated or spent. I am familiar with how NOAA Fisheries allocates funds to support research, but a lot of that is mandated research; then there is research to support legislation and management and regulation of fisheries and related marine resources.
It is, nevertheless, an excellent idea to somehow join forces with the victims of other types of cancer and push for increased funding.
Jim
- By berlin2
- Posted October 4, 2009 at 12:18 pm
- Report post
This pertains to the general topic of cancer research funding, but is not really about the amounts of allocations for specific types of cancer. It is alarming to realize that in the “war on cancer”, progress is so slow. My father died in 1958 of lung cancer and now 51 years later my husband is battling the same disease and yet the dismal statistics are basically unchanged.
The traditional funding sources for cancer research seem to be loyal to those proposals which are “safe”. If you are interested, here is a link to a NY Times article last summer in which cancer researchers are interviewed: the following paragraph is just a part of the article:
“The fight against cancer is going slower than most had hoped, with only small changes in the death rate in the almost 40 years since it began. One major impediment, scientists agree, is the grant system itself. It has become a sort of jobs program, a way to keep research laboratories going year after year with the understanding that the focus will be on small projects unlikely to take significant steps toward curing cancer.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/health/research/28cancer.html?pagewanted= 1
One scientist mentioned in the above article, Eileen K. Jaffe, testified last summer before a congressional subcommittee about the peer review approval process – interesting, but rather discouraging reading: if you google Eileen K. Jaffe and click on the pdf file
Approtriations.senate/gov… you will be able to read it.
Jane
- By Charlene1
- Posted October 4, 2009 at 4:43 pm
- Report post
This is interesting reading. I understand that beginning 2010 at Massachusettes General every new tumor diagnosed as cancerous will be biopsied and put through numerous tests to determine what kind of tumor it is and what its mutations are. I think that is very encouraging. Has anyone else heard about this? Hugs, Charlene
- By diamond
- Posted October 4, 2009 at 5:10 pm
- Report post
I should not be surprised by what is being said. It sounds as though cancer research is much like lots of scientific research. We end every journal article with more research is needed. We promote ourselves and our research to get that next research grant or contract. At that same time, many researchers have large amounts of human capital invested in their research; they become experts in their fields--apparently, not a lot in my major concern--lung cancer.
It remains difficult to figure out the allocations and whether or not this is a major issue--some on this list do not believe it is a major issue while others believe it is a highly important issue. To me, the important issue is the treatment of my lung cancer, but I remain highly interested in how research is funded and what research is funded. If NIH is like many other scientific funding agencies, it is highly political, with a good old boys (girls) network. There are established collaborative networks. Again, I am not saying this is the case for NIH; this is just what I have observed in other agencies providing funding for non-medical research.
I am now convinced, after hearing from other individuals, that research dollars are not likely to freely flow to lung cancer until there is some united voice by all cancer victims.
Jim
Add to the discussion