There are many diseases that plague this world, some physical and some metaphorical. Metaphorical diseases, like war and poverty, can easily be remedied, but physical diseases, like Ebola and the Zika Virus, require much more effort to rehabilitate. However, one in particular has risen above all others throughout history, the most devastating and persistent illness of all: cancer. Millions of people die from different forms of cancer every year, and the bodycount is only increasing.
The way to rehabilitate the majority of the public who suffer from cancer is to create an organization, one of astronomical proportions, comprised of almost every cancer research scientist in the world. With the number of cancer patients exponentially increasing every day, the current world leaders need to come together and form an international cancer research group because the wide variety of scientists simultaneously working towards a solution would greatly increase the chances of finding a viable cure, the funding for the organization would be virtually limitless, and, if a cure is found, every country would have equal access to it.
Although an international cancer research team would be the answer to all the world’s cancer problems, there are select group of individuals who would choose to believe otherwise. The people opposed to this proposal would be those who believe that their nation’s funds should be put towards military standards instead of healthcare. These people often disagree with world peace and unity because they are nationalists.
In Steven Salzberg’s Forbes article, “Which Is More Important: Military Drones Or A Cure For Cancer? e writes about how the United States government chooses to place their efforts in other fields such as military funding, and he tries to justify their reasoning by stating how statistics have shown that military funding has brought more wealth to the country (Salzberg). In his article, he writes, “Which Is More Important: Military Drones Or A Cure For Cancer? The U. S. government has an answer: drones. Drones and other weapons of destruction are vastly more important than healing people” (Salzberg). This shows how the U. S. government believes more in protecting its borders than it does in helping the medical progress of its nation.
Also, bureaucrats who try to privatize and gain profit from medical research would be opposed to this organization because they are against providing advanced medical resources to a public who cannot afford them; they prefer to see their profit margins increase rather than see the statistics for cancer deaths decrease. On a multitude of occasions throughout history, it has been proven that there is unparalleled strength in numbers. Having a plethora of scientists and research teams at the organization’s disposal would skyrocket the progress towards finding a cure.
A team of scientific analysts from the Science & Engineering Ethics journal recently wrote an editorial titled, “A Quantitative Perspective on Ethics in Large Team Science. ” In their article, they went on to construe the roles and ethics of scientists involved in large scale scientific experiments, stating that each scientist has an obligation and responsibility that is equally crucial for the progress of their experiments (pp. 923-45). The analysts stated, “The increase in the characteristic size and complexity of teams reflects the division of labor that is necessary in large projects.
As a result, team science is now more prevalent than individual science”(pp. 923-45). This analysis displays how there is a need for cooperation among lab technicians in order for them to be able to derive accurate results from their experiments. If all capable countries were to participate in this coalition, then the scientists involved in the research would gain access to an abundance of resources far beyond what would have been available to them had they conducted experiments individually.
The ease of access, to the work of other researchers, would greatly speed up the research process because there would not be any walls set in place to stop scientists from different countries from sharing evidence with each other. The widespread cooperation would allow the researchers to conveniently communicate with each other without the need for chauvinistic competition, which would otherwise create barriers in the progression of cancer research.
Often in projects as groundbreaking as this one, funding becomes an issue to be worried about, but with a project on as of large a scale as this, funding won’t be an issue because every country involved would simultaneously provide funding for resources as needed. Global government funding for a cancer research team would increase the amount of resources at the scientists’ disposal exponentially. In a paper from the Southern Political Science Association titled, “Malignant Indifference: Government Funding of Cancer Research,” author, Wendy N. Whitman Cobb, Ph. D. ecides to analyze the importance and significance of government funding for cancer research by classifying the government’s numerous roles in providing extensive funds for cancer research (Malignant).
In her paper, Whitman writes, “The vast majority of funding for research into cancer comes not from the well publicized efforts of groups like the American Cancer Society or university groups but instead from the US government through the National Cancer Institute” (Malignant). The US government’s involvement in cancer research reflects how government participation greatly benefits the cause by providing unparalleled funding and resources.
Without the need for ineffective fundraising events and kickstarter campaigns, the organization can better use its time looking for a cure that satisfies all needs. A significant increase in funds would allow scientists to continue their research, despite the possibility of failure, without the fear of running out of resources. The benefit of having dozens of countries involved in a project of such magnitude is that, if a solution is found, all countries would have equal access to it.
If every country had access to the cure, then millions of lives would be saved. A team of journalists from The Lancet medical journal, wrote an article addressing this topic. In their article, they described the world’s current inability to supply sufficient cancer care and treatment to the lesser-privileged areas of society (pp. 1186-93). They stated, “Increased access to primary care combined with well designed and affordable disease-control programmes can greatly improve cancer care and control in low-income and middle-income countries” (pp. 86-93).
Their compliance with the theory that increased access to treatment would benefit society shows that there is a desperate and apparent need for this organization to exist. Along with every country’s involvement, there would be multiple cancer treatment facilities incorporated in every major city around the world. Without the need to import medical supplies from other countries, the countries involved would gain easy access to all resulting solutions.
Furthermore, having every country produce their own portion of the cure would drastically decrease the price of the solution. Also, the longer the research continues, the more refined the research process and results will become. In conclusion, the world desperately needs to establish this organization in order to save the lives of the millions of people who suffer from cancer related illnesses every day. Diversity in the cancer treatment community would provide a myriad of opportunities for solutions and breakthroughs in cancer research.
The immense amount of resources allocated for the sort of cooperative experiment such as this would allow for endless amounts of research to be conducted comfortably in order to glean definitive answers. Also, the resulting panacea would help preserve the lives of billions all around the world. Moreover, not only would the culminating cure save the lives of the majority of cancer patients today, if the solution proved to be adequate, the cure would positively influence the fates of billions of people faced with cancer in the future.