Obtaining funding to carry out research is perhaps one of the most prominent obstacles faced by scientists, engineers, doctors and anyone else working in the field of research. However, despite the competitive nature of the funding system, projects pertaining to certain diseases tend to always be at the top of the list when it comes to acquiring grants. But why?
It’s no secret that diseases like cancer are continuously supported, be it through public donations or government grants. But what about diseases that are more painful than cancer, have lower survival rates and destroy the lives of those unlucky enough to have these diseases – often in ways much more detrimental than cancer? This is not to say that cancer is not a disease worthy of such support. As one of the biggest killers in the world, it most definitely requires all the help it can get. So there is no mitigating the severity of cancer. However, due to the funding and public attention received by cancer, substantial progress has been made in improving overall outcomes for many forms of the disease.
Despite the competitive nature of the funding system, projects pertaining to certain diseases tend to always be at the top of the list when it comes to acquiring grants
ADVERTISEMENT
But despite this fantastic increase in survival rates, other diseases still live in cancer’s shadow and tend to be overlooked when it comes to funding. When researching the world’s most painful diseases, the top two or three are almost always neurological. Kidney stones come a close second, followed by inflammatory diseases. So why are these facts put to the side? Why then don’t we have a “Krabbe’s disease month”, just as cancer has “breast cancer awareness month” – a cancer which has a survival rate of over 90 per cent in the West, and 83 per cent in Ireland, as well as an ample amount of pain management options? What makes one disease superior to another?
Siddhartha Mukherjee, an American physician and author, described cancer as “the emperor of all maladies”, but is it even ethical to give one disease more importance over another? Speaking to The University Times, Prof Luke O’Neill, a researcher at Trinity’s Biomedical Sciences Institute, said that he thought it was unethical, but that “the issue is priorities”, and that another problem is that “big charities have more money and they go after the big diseases”. If both charities and grants go after the “big diseases” who looks after the minority diseases? As a society, we focus on the majority and look past the minority, no matter what difficulties these minorities may be facing. Cancer is a disease we all hear about on a regular basis. As a society, our hearts bleed for cancer patients, as they should, but then not to the same extent for people with diseases that are just as bad, or worse in some cases.
An example of such a disease is mitochondrial disease. This occurs when the body severely lacks mitochondria, and the illness takes the life of almost all of its sufferers. Most people may not have ever heard of this devastating condition, despite the fact that nearly as many children die annually from mitochondrial disease as from cancer. So why are millions pumped into cancer research, but not into mitochondrial research? What factors are considered when the government decides to grant funds to a research project?
Overall, since diseases such as cancer are more prevalent, they receive greater funding for research than others. Although we can probably do little to change this, what we can do is change how we view other illnesses. We can also change how we donate and who we donate to. This is not to say that cancer should not receive more public donations, but even within cancer, the minorities are neglected. We’ve all seen and heard of “Breast Cancer Awareness Month” and “Movember” – two months dedicated to raising funds and awareness for breast cancer and prostate cancer. But did you know these cancers have two of the highest survival rates of all cancers? Both have a survival rate of over 95 per cent in the developed world, while gallbladder cancer has a death rate of 97 per cent, and pancreatic cancer a death rate of 93 per cent. So why aren’t there specific months dedicated to these two cancers?
If we learn to donate with thought and consideration, we may begin to see a difference in the quality of life of people with debilitating illnesses
Even though smaller numbers are affected by these cancers, their chances of survival are almost non-existent relative to those of breast and prostate cancer. Therefore it is up to us as a society to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. For example, the “Ice Bucket Challenge” was a charitable challenge initiated by the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) association in an attempt to raise awareness and funds for ALS (a form of motor neurone disease). Their initiative resulted in a wave of support: so much so, the money raised was enough for researchers to identify a number of genes involved in the disease. The charity was able to raise over $1 million in the space of 30 days, and not only did the challenge raise substantial amounts of money, but ALS was no longer an illness no one knew about. Instead, it became a topic of conversation in households around the world.
This is a perfect example of how coming together as a society can make a major difference to those suffering from less well-known illnesses. If we learn to donate with thought and consideration, we may begin to see a difference in the quality of life of people with debilitating illnesses. William Osler, a Canadian physician and one of the founding fathers of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, once said “to have striven, to have made the effort, to have been true to certain ideals – this alone is worth the struggle”. We must make an effort to help those who suffer most in our society. Even if it fails, it will have been worth the struggle.
