>There are not enough researchers and isn't enough funding to tackle every one of the hundreds of cancers and their subtypes in any reasonable about of time via the one project per cancer approach.
Its partly the way the problem is framed. Perhaps we wrongly assumed that cancer is one disease with a distinct root cause / cure purely based on similarities in symptoms. If so, talking of "curing cancer" is like "curing inflammation" - its much too general a symptom to cure, even though doctors are able to treat many cases of it by narrowing down the cause of inflammation, or treat it partially etc. Maybe cancer will be cured piecewise over the years rather than all at once, and people will laugh at how humanity thought there was a disease called cancer.
Agree. I think of cancer as the consequences of "bugs in our code". Saying we are going to cure cancer is on par with saying we are going to produce bug free software. That said having spent time around cancer hospitals, things have vastly improved over the last decade or so not just in survival rates, but quality of life post treatment.
I am told at work (I work in the cancer-medicine field but am no expert) that there are upwards of 1,000 distinct targeted cancer therapies in various stages of R&D at present. They could certainly (and likely will) make a big dent
I dont understand - melanoma (or any other type of cancer) would be explained just as it is currently explained by medicine (i am not an expert), i am only saying its possible that the cause of melanoma is different enough from the cause of lung cancer that they might not deserve to be grouped under the same name. In which case, we would not expect a single cure to be effective for both.
I have no idea, im not a doctor. Based on pop-sci articles, i think the idea is that a cell mutates to have DNA that makes it harmful to you. But this cell is part of your body, so it gets nutrients from the body and divides like any other cell, propagating its harmful DNA.
Its partly the way the problem is framed. Perhaps we wrongly assumed that cancer is one disease with a distinct root cause / cure purely based on similarities in symptoms. If so, talking of "curing cancer" is like "curing inflammation" - its much too general a symptom to cure, even though doctors are able to treat many cases of it by narrowing down the cause of inflammation, or treat it partially etc. Maybe cancer will be cured piecewise over the years rather than all at once, and people will laugh at how humanity thought there was a disease called cancer.