Viewpoint: There’s a reason we haven’t cured cancer. It has nothing to do with ‘leadership, motivation, or funding’

cancer scientists
For almost 50 years, the United States has been fighting a war that has claimed tens of millions of lives. The battleground? Hospitals and research labs across the country. The enemy? Cancer.

This unconventional โ€œwarโ€ on cancer was declared when Richard Nixon signed theย National Cancer Act of 1971. The bill strengthened existing federal research agencies and established new initiatives to find a cure for what was then theย second-leadingย cause of death in the United States. Unfortunately, despite very real advances in some areas, cancer mortality rates remain stubbornly high, and cancer has not budged from itsย #2 spotย on the list of things most likely to kill you.

ken
Image: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

Cancer affects us allโ€”itโ€™s a clichรฉ at this point, but itโ€™s true. Those who havenโ€™t been diagnosed personally almost always know somebody who has. Being staunchly anti-cancer is just about the least controversial position you can takeย (1).ย Politicians, in their never-ending search for cheap applause lines, have littered their campaigns with pledges to not just fight cancer but eradicate it. Within the last few weeks, presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle have gone so far as toย promise a cancerย cureย if elected.

The reason we donโ€™t have a cure for cancer isย notย a lack of leadership, motivation, or fundingย (2). Federal dollars for biomedical research are always appreciated, but no one personโ€”including the Presidentโ€”can flip the โ€œcure cancerโ€ switch. We have no clue where it is. And the more we learn about the intricacies of cancer biology, the more likely it seems as if it doesnโ€™t exist at all.

Scientists are ruthlessly pragmatic creatures. It doesnโ€™t matter how elegant a hypothesis may beโ€”if the data say that itโ€™s wrong, then itโ€™s wrong. Optimism has its place, but hope should always defer to the results of a properly designed and executed experiment.

All of this rigor helps to counter cognitive biases that are as powerful as they are pervasive. Even worse, their effects can be especially strong when your own ideas are at stake. As the great physicist Richard Feynman (known to his students at Cal Tech asย God) once put it, โ€œthe first principle is that you must not fool yourselfโ€”and you are the easiest person to fool.โ€

Over the next several weeks, Iโ€™ll dive into many of the scientific realities that stand in the way of a universal cure for cancer, such as drug resistance, tumor heterogeneity, and others. Itโ€™s a sobering story, but itโ€™s one thatโ€™s rooted in fact and nuance.

Though I consider myself to be an optimist, one thing I canโ€™t stand is blind optimism, especially coming from those with powerโ€”itโ€™s wasteful at best and actively destructive at worst. Maybe that makes me a technocrat, but I just see it as good scientific practice.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

NOTES:
(1) I canโ€™t imagine that a โ€œpro-cancerโ€ contingent actually exists, but humanity has shown no limit in its capacity to perplex and disappoint. Thereโ€™s probably some Malthusian corner of the Dark Web where these people congregate. Iโ€™m looking at you, Thanos!

(2) I should also address an appallingly common conspiracy theory that purports to explain our lack of progress against cancer. Few things make drug huntersโ€™ blood boil more than the idea that pharmaceutical companies are โ€œhidingโ€ cures for diseases like cancer. Not only would this be morally abhorrent, but it would also be financially idiotic. Companies routinely chargeย tens of thousands of dollarsย for drugs that extend the lives of cancer patients by a few months. An actualย cureย for cancer? That would be a license to print money.

Dr. Christopher Gerry was recently awarded a Ph.D. from the Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology at Harvard University, where he studied the science of therapeutics using a combination of synthetic organic chemistry, chemical biology, and small-molecule screening. At Harvard, Dr. Gerry contributed over 30 articles to the Science in the News blog, and he served as its Co-Editor-in-Chief from 2017-2019. His writing has also been featured in CCB Magazine. Follow him on Twitter @ChristopherG92

A version of this article was originally published on the American Council on Science and Health’s website asRethinking Our Goals In The ‘War On Cancer’ and has been republished here with permission.ย 

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosateโ€”the world's most heavily-used herbicideโ€”pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-04-14-at-11.11.06-AM
โ€˜Turbo cancerโ€™ or mRNA cancer cure? Strategies to counter misinformation
ChatGPT Image May 28, 2026, 08_16_38 PM
Viewpoint: Why the EPA mismeasures cancer risk of chemicals and what should be done to fix it
edb7f6d7-2370-418f-9578-74e29678e35c
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Nicotine vapingโ€”public health miracle, or risk to children? Professor Cliff Douglas
fda_logo_decimated
Viewpoint: RFK, Jr.โ€™s FDA is on a screaming downward pathโ€”and why it may never recover
ChatGPT-Image-May-22-2026-10_56_42-AM-2
โ€˜Itโ€™s not super usefulโ€™: As wariness about AI grows, Trump proposes rollback of healthcare safeguards
ChatGPT-Image-May-22-2026-10_26_09-AM
Gutting the National Science Board: How the Trump-RFK, Jr. crusade is erasing the separation of science and state
Screenshot-2026-05-27-at-10.51.25-AM
Viewpoint: โ€˜Monsantoโ€™ bluesโ€”Planned Netflix movie promises yet another round of anti-glyphosate disinformation
Picture1
The Orange Bowl without oranges: Can CRISPR save Florida citrus?
ChatGPT-Image-May-28-2026-11_31_47-AM-2
Relying on your doctor or AI miracle cure, death and debilitation? Neurologist makes the wrong choice
ChatGPT-Image-May-26-2026-11_51_01-AM
Viewpoint: RFK, Jr.โ€™s โ€˜sadisticโ€™ solution to autism, depression, and other ills looks a lot like prison camp
Screenshot-2026-05-26-at-12.36.18-PM
MAGAโ€™s latest โ€˜health obsessionโ€™? Nicotine patches promoted by โ€˜Zynfluencersโ€™โ€”including some in the Trump administrationย 
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpointโ€”โ€œMiracle moleculeโ€ debunked: Why acemannan supplements donโ€™t work
Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-12.21.32-PM
Viewpoint: Why the retracted Monsanto glyphosate study doesnโ€™t change the scienceโ€”the worldโ€™s most popular herbicide is safeย 
vax-misinformation-main
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Limit free speech to blunt social media misinfo?
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.