Idea #131 for June 29th, 2009: Thinking Inside the Box or Are We Funding the Right Cancer Research?

Since 1971, the National Cancer Institute has funded $105 billion worth of research, yet the death rate from cancer has not substantially dropped over that period. As the New York Times wrote about Sunday, this has raised some questions as to the types of projects that are being funded. In short, money has largely gone towards funding low-risk, low-reward research, while riskier projects that may lead to groundbreaking discoveries are often passed over.

The article mentions the funding of projects that yield only incremental benefits, such as developing a computer program that helps people make healthier food choices. Research like this — which can possibly be beneficial but will in no-way bring us closer to curing cancer — is more likely to win a grant because it’s a safe choice. There’s no risk of catastrophic failure there. Knowing that pitching “safe” research is the best bet to get funding, and thus keep their lab afloat, scientists are being incentivized to continue proposing low-reward research.

Now the NIH is using a pilot program to test funding less conventional research. They’re also earmarking $25 million of grants for high-risk/innovative research projects. But that only represents a drop in the bucket compared to the many billions already spent on cancer research. As of now, the projects selected have been too conservative, and funders have to be less concerned about “wasting” money on longshots. Otherwise there will be the perception that all the money has been spent on sure-bets that do little in the way of actually getting us closer to a cure.

For more, read the story in the NY Times.