Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNN0LHI

(67,190 posts)
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 02:43 PM Jan 2012

Suppose JFK had said we'll find a cure cancer by the end of the decade instead of going to the moon

And then for the sake of argument say we actually had found a cure for all forms of cancer by then.

Which one would you have considered the more important accomplishment?

Don

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Suppose JFK had said we'll find a cure cancer by the end of the decade instead of going to the moon (Original Post) NNN0LHI Jan 2012 OP
These things can't be compared jberryhill Jan 2012 #1
That's a tough one. boxman15 Jan 2012 #2
If I remember correctly, Nixon actually did that. trackfan Jan 2012 #3
Great post, and... YvonneCa Jan 2012 #4
I doubt a cure will ever be made available to the general public Siwsan Jan 2012 #5
Sorry, but I have to roll my eyes at this. TheWraith Jan 2012 #6
your second paragraph is a perfect description of corporate "health care" at its finest. msongs Jan 2012 #7
As long as we are stuck with the reigning PTB... dogknob Jan 2012 #8
How could they've faked a cure for cancer? NightWatcher Jan 2012 #9
At that time, research was not even near a place where they MineralMan Jan 2012 #10
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
1. These things can't be compared
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 02:49 PM
Jan 2012

The science involved in understanding how to get to the moon was fully understood when he made the statement. All of the relevant physics were known. The task of getting there was an engineering problem, not a scientific problem.

Cancer is not one disease, and the mechanisms of all cancers are not fully understood. That is a scientific problem, not an implementation problem.

In other words, the answer to the question of "How to do this?" was known in 1963 in relation to getting to the moon.

The answer to the question of "How to do this?" relative to your "all forms of cancer" is not even known. So it is not a question of simply marshaling the resources to carry out a relatively well-determined task.

boxman15

(1,033 posts)
2. That's a tough one.
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 02:49 PM
Jan 2012

Obviously, a cure for cancer is sorely needed. We all know someone who has been affected by cancer, and it's a terrible disease. On top of that, the intensified research for a cure would lead to different cures and vaccines for other diseases potentially.

But, the space race is largely responsible for our modern way of life. Without it, I wouldn't be typing on my laptop right now. I'd go into further detail, but I'm in a bit of a rush. The space race, though, led to the greatest technological explosion in human history. The rapid rate of technological advancement due to the space race is well documented.

trackfan

(3,650 posts)
3. If I remember correctly, Nixon actually did that.
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 02:52 PM
Jan 2012

But he wasn't exactly an inspiring figure.

To answer your question: as an accomplishment, the cancer cure would have been more important, in my opinion.

Siwsan

(26,250 posts)
5. I doubt a cure will ever be made available to the general public
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 02:58 PM
Jan 2012

I hate to sound cynical but there is far too much money being made from cancer treatments.

TheWraith

(24,331 posts)
6. Sorry, but I have to roll my eyes at this.
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 03:08 PM
Jan 2012

The "there's really a cure, but it's being suppressed" conspiracy belief. Which requires, logically, that practically every scientist who works on cancer treatments somehow participate in said conspiracy, OR that each group which discovers such a cure independently decides to suppress it, OR that there's a giant multi-tentacled "Men in Black" group out there quietly working on behalf of keeping cancer going.

Not to mention the prospect that some company decided "Well, we could release our cancer cure and make probably two hundred billion dollars over the next ten years as well as becoming the most lauded medical company of all history, but instead we're going to suppress it, taking the risk that we're exposed and utterly destroyed later on, because we'd rather make a little money on each person dying instead of selling them a pill to cure cancer three, four, maybe five times over the course of their now-long lives."

By the way: actually, there's very LITTLE actual profit in cancer treatments. Chemotherapy and radiation are both very simple treatments involving absolutely no patented drugs. It's expensive, because it requires hospital time, specialized equipment, specialized knowledge, and extensive testing, but it's not actually a profit center.

msongs

(67,361 posts)
7. your second paragraph is a perfect description of corporate "health care" at its finest.
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 03:11 PM
Jan 2012

otherwise the government would use its purchasing power to get lower prices on medications.

dogknob

(2,431 posts)
8. As long as we are stuck with the reigning PTB...
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 03:11 PM
Jan 2012

...there will never be a cure for cancer, AIDS, herpes...

It is more profitable to treat these diseases than it is to cure them.

MineralMan

(146,262 posts)
10. At that time, research was not even near a place where they
Fri Jan 27, 2012, 03:16 PM
Jan 2012

could have done that. Not even close. Genetics has come so far in the past couple of decades, and that is where any cure for cancer will be found. When JFK said we'd go to the moon, we still knew very little about cancer. Now, we know much more, and it has been basic research that has given us that knowledge. Now, we're beginning to understand what will be needed to deal with the many, many types of cancer. Now, we can begin looking for possible cures. Only now.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Suppose JFK had said we'l...