The "MOONSHOT". Part 1

Western Michigan University, 1999

It might be considered stupid and a bit churlish of me to complain about the Obama/Biden “Moonshot” to cure cancer (see SOTUA).  After all, it means more money for cancer research, right?, and every little bit helps.   Just the same, in this blog I plan to toss out a few sour grapes.  My plans are to do some heavy pondering for a while,  and then, if my brain churns out anything worth writing about I will inflict it on you.  For the moment, though – here is where I’m at:

1)      We tried an anti-cancer “Moonshot” 45 years ago.  It didn’t work.  The notion was that we could simply smother the disease in money.  The problem was two-fold.  First, we didn’t know enough about cancer to attempt efficient remedies, and second, the money (and it was ample) was distributed ineffectively.

2)      We know much more about cancer now than in 1971, but the more we learn, the more we realize how ignorant we really are.   For instance, recent studies of the human genome, in particular the ENCODE project, have shown that the “junk DNA” that makes up over 90% of our genome (the part that doesn’t code for proteins), is responsible for producing molecules that “regulate” (turn on or off genes) gene-coding stretches of DNA, or otherwise affect their behavior.  This behavior can be  spectacularly complicated, and in general is very poorly understood. So, for instance, there is no “gene for ovarian cancer” which we might hope to “fix”.  In fact, there is no such thing as a unitary OVCA; about a half-dozen separate diseases are recognized, each with its own distinct genetic markesr.  The same goes for other cancers; probably most.  Thus, you can’t hope to cure “cancer”, but perhaps it is legitimate to hope that these separate, often quite distinct, maladies can be overcome, one by one.  This will take time and, yes, lots of money.

3)      From most of the news commentary it would appear that all the nation’s cancer big-wigs are delighted with the "Moonshot".  Don’t be misled; spokespersons for big research agencies are ALWAYS delighted to receive more funding.  When was the last time you heard of such a guy remarking “Well, we’ve got plenty of money.  Wish we knew what to do with it.”   

4)      To conquer “cancer”, then, I think that a more centralized, top-down administrative structure will be required.  We made it to the moon so fast because NASA was not structured like the NSF or the NIH.  Same way with creating the atom bomb.  If NASA had relied on peer review to make decisions we would still be trying to decide whether to use solid or liquid fuel.

Okay, this is my starting point.  As to where I might be going, read this:

http://ljb-quiltcutie.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-truth-in-small-doses-at-long-last_7.html