> Not sure why you got downvoted, it's a very valid comment.
I think in retrospect that my normal dose of snark, even with the point I was trying to make, was probably not appropriate to the topic at hand. If nothing else it might seem flippant, and while I know that's not what I would mean, that doesn't mean people seeing the comment independently would realize that.
> The complexity of 'erasing cancer' is very much mis-understood, even though it is of course a noble goal.
If I had a do-over that's probably exactly how I would phrase it instead. Saying we should simply cure cancer, as it were always one massive public project away and just needed political will, just demonstrates an immature understanding of cancer research as it stands today.
Certainly it's a noble goal, but it's seemingly at odds with how biology works in a body in the long run.
I think in retrospect that my normal dose of snark, even with the point I was trying to make, was probably not appropriate to the topic at hand. If nothing else it might seem flippant, and while I know that's not what I would mean, that doesn't mean people seeing the comment independently would realize that.
> The complexity of 'erasing cancer' is very much mis-understood, even though it is of course a noble goal.
If I had a do-over that's probably exactly how I would phrase it instead. Saying we should simply cure cancer, as it were always one massive public project away and just needed political will, just demonstrates an immature understanding of cancer research as it stands today.
Certainly it's a noble goal, but it's seemingly at odds with how biology works in a body in the long run.