Is Money, Celebrity and Politics Distorting Cancer Research?

Categories: Schutze

SHZ_GetOffMyLawn_TitleImageV2.jpg
Wait a minute. We here in Dallas know all about people who have used cancer research to promote themselves. Nancy, Lance, Rick, for three. But when do we ask questions about the research itself?

The Dallas-founded Komen Foundation blew up last year after founder Nancy Brinker allowed it to be taken over by an ultra-right anti-abortion mujahid. Everybody and his dog knows by now how Lance Armstrong used his own cancer research foundation as camo to cover his role as a capo in the bicycle doping mafia.

Most of us have the general idea that there's something crooked going with Governor Rick Perry's Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas, even though mustering enough power of concentration to actually read the CPRIT stories might require a couple Adderall and half a dozen lattes.

So what larger truth can we glean from the Nancy-Lance-Rick cancer research syndrome? We know there is some considerable quantity of manipulation and monkey business in the raising and spending of cancer research money. But does that mean we need to wonder about the research itself?

Of course it does.

brinkerarmstrongperry.jpg
Nancy, Lance and Rick: Whom do you trust?
Look, if you've got eight women in fake nun's habits collecting cash for refugees at a major traffic intersection, are you going to say to yourself, "Well, the nuns are fake, but I'm confidant the refugee charity they support is not."

No. You're going to tell yourself that the fake nuns are smoke and you need to look for fire. By that same token, our dubious serial involvement in cancer blarney here in Texas is a compelling argument that we need to look for ways in which the blarney may have corrupted the research.

If fear of cancer can propel entire social careers, international sports celebrity careers and presidential hopeful careers (oops), then the same careerist energy can distort things on the receiving end of the money back in the land of white lab coats where the work is done.

And in fact there is concern in medical science about money-driven distortions in the research. Last year The New York Times reported that the National Cancer Institute and the Institute of Medicine had launched investigations of an experimental cancer testing program at Duke based on what may be the hottest ticket in cancer research, genome-based testing.

The story quoted a Dr. Scott Ramsey, director of cancer outcomes research at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, saying there is "a mini-gold rush" of companies peddling cancer tests based on new genome techniques that lack proper scientific vetting. "That's the scariest part of all," Ramsey told the Times.

This is not to say that genome cancer research is bad. Scientists are looking at genetic factors because the research has led them there. But this is to say there is also big money in gene-based testing, and enough people are willing to cut corners to get to that money that their activities have alarmed the scientific community.

Of Nancy, Lance and Rick, the only case in which we know for sure that corruption has reached the level of the research itself is CPRIT, the governor's baby, from which respectable scientists have been jumping ship in recent months like teenagers bailing out the windows from a house party raided by the cops. A quick look at CPRIT's work reveals that genome research has been high on its list of activities.

At least 40 percent of scientists who have received CPRIT money in recent years have been engaged directly in gene-based research. And, let me say again that even the imprimatur of Governor Oops does not make gene-based research bad research. It does mean, however, that the scientific community needs to do a big big house-cleaning on questions of money and its influence on the larger directions of research.

The medical research community should look at it this way. What do most people know about cancer research in the last year? Well, just take us here in Dallas as your case study.

We know that the Komen Foundation, the pink ribbon people, got caught using their cancer research foundation to push a right-wing political cause. We know that Lance Armstrong, another local boy, exploited his own cancer research foundation as a shield to protect an international conspiracy of sports cheaters. And we suspect that Governor Perry has been sluicing cancer research money to his buddies, a fact by which, by the way, we are not shocked, shocked.

All bad. What we know about cancer research in the last year is all bad. Looks bad, walks bad, quacks bad.

We're still afraid of cancer. We still yearn for a cure. We still have a certain latent respect for people in white lab coats. But the people in the white lab coats need to reflect on the fact that while our fear is great, our latent respect for them is not inexhaustible. That respect is their principle asset in the support of their research. They should not let it wear thin.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
13 comments
animas
animas

It turns out that money distorts quite a bit of medical research. The conflict of interest (COI-to insiders) which most recently comes to mind is the Journal of the American Medical Association-yes THAT AMA, scandal of 2009 where an author of a "scientific" article claimed that the drug  Lexapro was the best means of treating depression post stroke while "ignoring" data suggesting behavioral therapy was just as effective.  Turns out (surprise, surprise) the author was a paid speaker for Forest Labs which manufactured the drug-you guessed it-Lexapro.  Your article's last paragraph sums up our current cultural dilemma perfectly.

Sotiredofitall
Sotiredofitall topcommenter

Anyone ponder how much money would actually go to research if the overhead of all these competing celebrity ego trips and political grandstanders went away?

Don_in_FortWorth
Don_in_FortWorth

Begs the question:

 ? Why the hell is cancer research the province of athletes and PrestonWood bridge clubs?

It's embarrassing that there was such a strong vacuum that these efforts by these parties were needed in the first place....what a screwed up country...sheesh

James080
James080

After watching Perry abuse the Texas Enterprise Fund for years, I just assumed that CPRIT was created as merely another source of funds Perry could use to funnel public money to his friends and contributors.

Lost in the noise of the CPRIT scandal is an important question I have not really considered: are the funds awarded by CPRIT, which are not politically motivated, doing any real public good?  Has there been a net tangible benefit in the fight against cancer? Any breakthroughs?

The jury is still out on the Enterprise Fund. Perry claims the Enterprise Fund has led to tens of thousands of new jobs and billions in investment in Texas, there doesn't seem to be any hard data to substantiate his numbers. On the other hand, if Texas is, as Perry claims, the most business friendly state in the nation, why is it necessary to gift half a billion dollars to companies to lure them to Texas?


ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

we dont know anything but bad because all we hear are stories written about the bad.  Have you penned one article about cancer research this year that shows it positive affect?  No, is it because there is nothing positive or is it just more fun to rip on those which you dislike.

dallasdem
dallasdem

Jim, I hope you didn't pen that grammatically incorrect title. "Is our children learning"?

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@ScottsMerkin 

You think I made Lance, Nancy and Rick big stories? Wow. For my next act, I shall saw them in half on stage.

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

@JimSX no i dont think you did, but we've hammered away at now for months.  you know what would be interesting.  How much money that was raised through livestrong actually went to research, same for the others.  Im sure its out there but im not the writer and I dont feel like researching today.   I promise, if it comes out that very little did, I will be pissed and be on your side

MattL11
MattL11

@mavdog No, I'm right. They used to fund cancer research, but they stopped a few years ago. 

MattL11
MattL11

@ScottsMerkin @JimSX I'm pretty sure NONE of the money that goes to Livestrong actually goes to cancer research. 

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...