I have seen this argument before: what you're missing is that pediatric cancer, terrible as it is, is far rarer than other cancer types.
Pediatric cancer is exceptionally rare. The ACS figures[1] for this year estimate 1,350 childhood cancer deaths out of 585,720 total deaths, or 0.2%. The prime driver for cancer research fund allocation is incidence rate. You are far more likely to develop cancer aged 20-40 than you are aged 0-20. 12% of all women will develop invasive breast cancer at some point in their lives.
I am not saying there isn't an argument for increasing pediatric cancer research: the question is whether a disease that has a very low incidence rate should get extra funding at the expense of a disease with a comparatively high one. I don't know the answer, and I don't pretend to. I do think cancer research funding is a very complicated matter, and inevitably one group of people is going to end up angry and upset at the expense of another.
BUT if you add in the years saved ped cancer equals lung cancer AND peds cancer research has directly helped adult cancer. It is the hardest to fight and once found it would directly help most adult diseases. Now adults get the meds and the research and then 5+ years later they will start a trial IF they can get funding.
20+ years ZERO new chemotherapy drugs introduced to pediatric cancer treatments. We can do better. TO bad the cancer that killed my son has more research spending for dogs then there is for adults and children of bone cancer. Priorities!
Pediatric cancer is exceptionally rare. The ACS figures[1] for this year estimate 1,350 childhood cancer deaths out of 585,720 total deaths, or 0.2%. The prime driver for cancer research fund allocation is incidence rate. You are far more likely to develop cancer aged 20-40 than you are aged 0-20. 12% of all women will develop invasive breast cancer at some point in their lives.
I am not saying there isn't an argument for increasing pediatric cancer research: the question is whether a disease that has a very low incidence rate should get extra funding at the expense of a disease with a comparatively high one. I don't know the answer, and I don't pretend to. I do think cancer research funding is a very complicated matter, and inevitably one group of people is going to end up angry and upset at the expense of another.
[1]: http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerf...