Medical Research, would they reveal or wouldn't they?

[Hondo]

Everybody has heard tales and fables about how old So&So invented a device by which you could run an automobile for 600 miles at 80 mph using only two old shoelaces, a gallon of water, and half a cup of table salt. Of course old So&So was either bought out by big oil and sworn to secrecy or was killed by big oil and had his device stolen. Either way, this device will never see the light of day.

This brings cancer research to mind. The world has spent and is still spending gazillions on cancer research. The research and treatment of cancer is a major industry unto itself that provides employment from highly paid medical professionals down to the minimum wage hand that works for a medical laundry service. If a research team found a way to genectically stop a current cancer, and then with a limited or one time treatment prevent any reoccurance of cancer, would they publicise it? Could they afford to go public with it? Could the research and treatment infrastructure be switched over to something else? Would social governments be able to cover the costs of their populations living longer?

Personally, I don't think they would conceal a cure. What do you think?

[BeansBeansBeans]

I've heard conspiracy theories based around some guy who discovered a technique involving light that'd cure all illnesses instantly.

Obviously nonsense.

[Daniel]

Everybody has heard tales and fables about how old So&So invented a device by which you could run an automobile for 600 miles at 80 mph using only two old shoelaces, a gallon of water, and half a cup of table salt. Of course old So&So was either bought out by big oil and sworn to secrecy or was killed by big oil and had his device stolen. Either way, this device will never see the light of day.

This brings cancer research to mind. The world has spent and is still spending gazillions on cancer research. The research and treatment of cancer is a major industry unto itself that provides employment from highly paid medical professionals down to the minimum wage hand that works for a medical laundry service. If a research team found a way to genectically stop a current cancer, and then with a limited or one time treatment prevent any reoccurance of cancer, would they publicise it? Could they afford to go public with it? Could the research and treatment infrastructure be switched over to something else? Would social governments be able to cover the costs of their populations living longer?

Personally, I don't think they would conceal a cure. What do you think?

Ditto, undercut the cancer drugs and you could make a killing with a cure for cancer.

[tannat]

Having been involved with cancer research in the US I would say what you suggest is possible, but only if your research concern did not receive money from the government, and was a private company.

I work in a children's hospital, and most of the research is grant funded the NIH which now have very strict guidelines regarding public access to published data.

To that you might say-well you simply don't publish the data. Sure, you could do that but in such a setting (i.e. research hospital, university setting) there is a high element of visibility-you really can't push things under the table, so to speak. And like any industry people talk and word travels.

Private coampanies such as biotechs with no obligations to publically report data, and who could retain some degree of invisibility would find it easier, although in the case of cancer I honestly can't imagine why anyone would do so.


I would assume around the world other government funded research has some degree of responsibility to report data as well.

[Dave B]

Unless the discovery was from some lonely boffin working in a laboratory all by himself, you'd never be able to keep a lid on it. There's simply too large a number of people working on such projects - you'd never be able to silence them all without resorting to the stuff of bad Hollywood movies.

[tannat]

It should be said that there will never be a single cure for cancer. Cancer wears many guises in many forms (i.e. retinoblastoma, acute myeloid leukemia, pediatric/geriatric populations, etc).

There may one day be a cure for a single type of cancer, but not a single cure for all types. It simply doesn’t work that way…..

[Dave B]

I looked upon the question as a theoretical and ethical dilemma rather than a literal possibility. You could I suppose substitute HIV, Alzheimer's or the common cold.

[tannat]

I looked upon the question as a theoretical and ethical dilemma rather than a literal possibility. You could I suppose substitute HIV, Alzheimer's or the common cold.

I see what you mean. Your suggestions (HIV etc) would be a fairer comparison to the car/oil example stated at the top of the thread as they are not as multifaceted as cancer..

[anthonyvop]

There are so many types of cancer that the idea of a cure for all types in illogical.

Many types of cancers are already curable and nobody has tried to supress that.
Also any cure will be quite lucrative just by the fact that people will continue to get cancer.
so the idea of a cancer cure-all being withheld is not likely.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Unless the discovery was from some lonely boffin working in a laboratory all by himself, you'd never be able to keep a lid on it. There's simply too large a number of people working on such projects - you'd never be able to silence them all without resorting to the stuff of bad Hollywood movies.

That was my thinking.

No mode of research or experimentation is ever really done in a vacuum. If more than 3 people know about it, chances are it would possibly leak to the outside world, especially if one of the 3 has a conscious. Last time I looked, most of this research, either done privately or publically usually was done by teams of researchers. If anything as monstrous as a cure was suppressed, someone would twitter it out somewhere....