Increase funding to lesser-recognized cancers and diseases
>>Print ViewPublication Date: 11/04/2009
sponsored by
Today would be his 59th birthday.
Unfortunately for me, my family and this planet, my father was taken from us many years ago by a very lethal disease: pancreatic cancer. It is the same form of cancer that claimed the lives of famed tenor Luciano Pavarotti, NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw, and more recently actor Patrick Swayze.
As we exit October and enter November, I consider whether these people would still be with us if there were as much time, effort and money put into pancreatic cancer awareness as is put into breast cancer awareness in October.
I do not wish to disparage the pink ribbon campaign, which has turned into something of a cult following. I am quite familiar with cancer in many of its ugly forms, including breast cancer, and would not want funding and awareness about it to be squelched. I think it is a great thing that so many people – from athletic organizations like the NFL, to events like Big Man On Campus here at Purdue – focus so much of their time and raise money for the cause. Everyone will likely cross paths with someone at some time in their lives, who is, or has been, afflicted with breast cancer.
There are dozens of other cancers, however, that could use the kind of attention that breast cancer receives; pancreatic cancer, with a mortality rate that hasn’t significantly improved since the early 1900s, is one of them.
In 2007, according to the National Cancer Institute, federal breast cancer funding topped $570 million. That is significantly more than the next most-funded non-skin-related cancer, prostate, which pulled in $296 million, and more than twice the funding for AIDS, which received $254 million. Furthermore, this figure does not include the “Stamp Out Breast Cancer“ money: money that comes from postal customers who purchase more costly postage stamps to raise funds for breast cancer research – a program made possible through an act implemented by Congress in 1997, and renewed in the years 2000 and 2005.
So, the question is, “Has all this funding for the cure to breast cancer been effective in decreasing the mortality rate of breast cancer in America?” The raw statistics suggest it has. According to the American Cancer Society, there has been a steady decline in the death rate from breast cancer since 1990. During much of this period, the funding for breast cancer research has increased each year.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
If increased funding can lead to longer life expectancy for breast cancer sufferers, perhaps this could be true for those suffering from other forms of cancer.
And for diseases like pancreatic cancer, a disease so lethal the aforementioned Gene Upshaw was diagnosed on a Sunday and died the following Wednesday, more money toward research is certainly necessary. Yet pancreatic cancer only receives 1/8 the funding breast cancer receives, despite being far more fatal.
Yes, I know there is more than one form of breast cancer, and funding can be split underneath the umbrella of breast cancer to favor one form over another. And yes, I understand the statistical numbers can be manipulated in support of a very specific form of one cancer or another. So the concept of funding all cancers isn’t as night-and-day as it may seem.
That said, each October, when you proudly attach a pink ribbon to your lapel, you should also consider donating money, time and resources toward funding research for other cancers and diseases: the majority of people who die of disease in this country each year will die of a disease other than breast cancer.
So, much like breast cancer, the dollars you donate to raise awareness about other diseases might be saving a life – even your own.
Darryl A. Boyd is a graduate student in the College of Science, and he dedicates this column to his father. He may be reached at opinions@purdueexponent.org.