{"title":"Why the War on Cancer Failed","authors":"Ignacio Castuera","doi":"10.1111/ajes.12479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In 1971, President Nixon launched the “war on cancer” with great fanfare. The dramatic increase in spending on targeted cancer research was supposed to quickly yield new treatments. That did not happen. The cancer establishment, which profits from the $200 billion spent annually on cancer treatment, has never provided an adequate accounting of how more spending translates into lives saved. In fact, by the mid-1980s, it became apparent that most of the “progress” in the war on cancer was little more than statistical sleight of hand. The death rate from cancer had climbed, not declined. Eventually, cancer deaths began to fall, but little of that improvement was due to better treatment. It was mostly a result of campaigns to reduce smoking and to promote early detection of treatable cancers. One reason the progress of treatment stalled was the unwillingness to consider unconventional treatments that were developed by doctors and other healers. Practitioners of unapproved treatments often sought refuge in Mexico from the medical apartheid system in the United States.</p>","PeriodicalId":47133,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Economics and Sociology","volume":"81 4","pages":"671-700"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Economics and Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12479","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In 1971, President Nixon launched the “war on cancer” with great fanfare. The dramatic increase in spending on targeted cancer research was supposed to quickly yield new treatments. That did not happen. The cancer establishment, which profits from the $200 billion spent annually on cancer treatment, has never provided an adequate accounting of how more spending translates into lives saved. In fact, by the mid-1980s, it became apparent that most of the “progress” in the war on cancer was little more than statistical sleight of hand. The death rate from cancer had climbed, not declined. Eventually, cancer deaths began to fall, but little of that improvement was due to better treatment. It was mostly a result of campaigns to reduce smoking and to promote early detection of treatable cancers. One reason the progress of treatment stalled was the unwillingness to consider unconventional treatments that were developed by doctors and other healers. Practitioners of unapproved treatments often sought refuge in Mexico from the medical apartheid system in the United States.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (AJES) was founded in 1941, with support from the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, to encourage the development of transdisciplinary solutions to social problems. In the introduction to the first issue, John Dewey observed that “the hostile state of the world and the intellectual division that has been built up in so-called ‘social science,’ are … reflections and expressions of the same fundamental causes.” Dewey commended this journal for its intention to promote “synthesis in the social field.” Dewey wrote those words almost six decades after the social science associations split off from the American Historical Association in pursuit of value-free knowledge derived from specialized disciplines. Since he wrote them, academic or disciplinary specialization has become even more pronounced. Multi-disciplinary work is superficially extolled in major universities, but practices and incentives still favor highly specialized work. The result is that academia has become a bastion of analytic excellence, breaking phenomena into components for intensive investigation, but it contributes little synthetic or holistic understanding that can aid society in finding solutions to contemporary problems. Analytic work remains important, but in response to the current lop-sided emphasis on specialization, the board of AJES has decided to return to its roots by emphasizing a more integrated and practical approach to knowledge.