From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Animal Research (mouse screens?)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 04:19:44 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> ... If you've got some pointers to current technical data, I'd
rl> love to take a look.  The only recent documentation that I've seen comes
rl> from reports in the popular press.   

From article <BvzICD.LIE@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger):
rs> I was under the impression that you had access to such 
rs> documentation as the basis of your original statement regarding 
rs> the use of (tumor-bearing) mice in screening for anticancer 
rs> drugs.  I will relay your statements to the National Cancer 
rs> Institute and attempt to find someone to address these points.  

Thanks. 

The details that I posted previously came from an article in the 
New York Times, based on interviews with John Mead and Robert 
Shoemaker from the National Cancer Institute and Frank Rauscher 
(senior VP for research with the American Cancer Society).  I've
read similar reports elsewhere, but I don't have any pointers 
handy.

rl> Was there any factual basis for the assumption that leukemia and
rl> breast cancer were related?  [no] I'm not attaching moral guilt 
rl> to the underlying assumptions, but they don't make much sense to 
rl> me. ....

rs> What is the factual basis for your statement that leukemia and
rs> breast cancer are unrelated?

Where did I make such a statement?  [no assumptions please]  :-)

rl> You're making an assumption... namely that a frontal attack on
rl> any problem is the best way to find a resolution.   What peeves me
rl> about the "War on Cancer" conducted in the 70's and early 80's
rl> is that the environmental factors affecting the onset of the disease
rl> were becoming apparent, via epidemiological studies, yet were 
rl> persistently ignored by the government as well as a number of 
rl> powerful, private organizations (notably the AMA).   I don't
rl> know the cost data, but I suspect the war on lung cancer could 
rl> have been won more cheaply and more quickly if the money spent
rl> on mouse screens had been used to buy off tobacco farmers once
rl> and for all.   I can't help wondering if "cure" warrants bigger
rl> expenditures than "prevention" because of the economic advantages
rl> contained therein for several select groups of individuals: farm
rl> lobbies, physicians, industrial polluters, and some (not all)
rl> pharmaceutical companies.

rs> I'm not making an assumption about the value of a frontal attack; Remember
rs> I have already stated that I question the value of mass screenings:
====================================================================
>rs> That said, I'll reiterate my personal distaste for mass screenings,
>rs> animal-based or otherwise. After several decades, it should be clear
>rs> that difficult problems may be more likely solved by thought than
>rs> by brute force. We've been trying brute force for years. 
====================================================================
rs> I agree that prevention is preferable to treatment, and that it 
rs> is difficult to understand how tobacco is still legal in this 
rs> country, given the tremendous cost in lives we have paid.  

I can understand why/how tobacco is still legal, and I can 
understand why/how publicity about the war on cancer may have 
given some smokers and voters reason to believe that a cure would 
soon be found and that major changes in both personal lifestyles 
and the economy might be unnecessary.  Of course, the cures never
panned out and smoking continues to cause major health problems...
not to mention the impact that it's had on the growth of our
costly, medical-industrial complex.

rs> I question, however, whether the war against cancer could have 
rs> been 'won' any more quickly.  Many cancers may have genetic or 
rs> viral origins, or environmental causes too subtle to detect.  
rs> Treatment depends on basic biochemical and physiological and 
rs> medical understanding of the disease.  Research is the way to 
rs> such an understanding.  This is a hideously complicated disease, 
rs> and prevention is only part of the answer.  

What part?  How much lung cancer and emphysema and heart disease 
would be prevented if cigarettes cost ten bucks a pack?  How much 
colon and breast cancer could be prevented if milk cost six bucks 
a gallon and a pound of hamburger cost ten bucks?  Or for that 
matter, how much would be prevented if consumers understood what 
"cancer survival rates" really mean?  

> [Nasrudin story about lost keys deleted] ...

rs> Aside from your statement regarding prevention and environmental
rs> cancer causes, what factual data did cancer researchers ignore
rs> when they went off in irrlevent directions to look for better
rs> therapy of cancer?

You were thinking about therapy.  I was thinking about 
prevention.  Both avenues could effectively eliminate the problem.  
Unfortunately, both legislators and public policy-makers in the 
60's, 70's, and 80's, chose to concentrate on therapeutic 
solutions because of the terrible political demons that popped 
out of the shadows whenever prevention was addressed head on.  
As an example, look at the financial opposition Jimmy Carter faced 
from the AMA and agricultural lobbies in response to USDA 
programs that were intended to warn consumers about the dangers 
of high-fat, low-fiber diets.  Or for that matter, consider
the accusations of "communism" that were bandied about two decades
previously in response to fluoridation campaigns by municipal 
governments. 

Times haven't changed much.  Consider the fuss last week re: the 
milk controversy.  What sort of turmoil would unfold if the USDA 
or the FDA were to require labels on milk containers that say: 
"Warning: this product may cause diabetes if given to infants under 
a year of age".  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals