Issue Number: 4

Title: Are We Winning the War on Cancer?

Yes Side Author and Thesis:
John R. Seffrin Winning the war on Cancer: Public health or Public
Policy challenge?
No Side Author and Thesis:
Reynold Spector The War on Cancer: A progress report for the
skeptics
2 Facts presented by Yes:
1. In the year of his speech (2006) cancer would kill more people
worldwide than 3 of the other most globally prevalent diseases
combined.
2. 131 countries had ratified the WHO Framework Convention on
Tobacco Control as of June 20, 2006.
2 Facts presented by No:
1. There is a 27% five year survival rate from metastatic breast
cancer.
2. The cancers we are able to screen for are cervical, colorectal and
breast.
2 Opinions presented by Yes:
1. Health and the means to achieve and maintain it is a
fundamental human right for all; not a privilege for the few.
2. One of the most important advances in womens health in recent
history is the FDA approval of the HPV vaccine.
2 Opinions presented by No:
1. Our lack of understanding of the causes of most cancers is the
primary obstacle in the war on cancer.
2. There is a small net benefit resulting from breast cancer
screening, but it is a positive one.
Yes Fallacies:
1. He states that cancer deaths are caused by our refusal to provide
lifesaving advances to all people, but earlier admits that those
advances are not effective for the majority of cancer cases.
2. He claims that mapping the human genome makes new cancer
cures inevitable, but acknowledges that most cancers are not
hereditary.
3. He states that the American taxpayer and voter wants us to fund
cancer research, but he cites no polling or statistics to support
this.

4. He says that we know, based on evidence, what it will take to win

the war on cancer, but also that we need to redouble our cancer
research portfolio.
No Fallacies:
1. He states that the reason for a decrease in stomach cancer is
unknown, but that it is NOT due to treatment, which is an
unsupported non sequitur.
2. He compares progress in the cancer field to progress in the
stroke and heart disease field despite the clear and vast
differences in the diseases themselves that render them
incomparable.
3. The criteria in Table 4, which he uses as the standard for cancer
therapy utility, are all highly subjective.
7. Which author was most empirical?
Reynold Spector impressed me as being the most empirical in
presenting his thesis, largely because he cited objective evidence and
because John Seffrins thesis read more like an appeal to emotions and
a pitch for support for his policy and funding initiatives. Spector
utilized data from presumably unbiased federal agencies, whereas
Seffrin cited less data and repeatedly used phrases like we must do
the right thing. Spector also explained his position by providing
analysis of methodologies, therapies and the specific drawbacks of
smart drugs, whereas Seffrin spoke in vaguer terms about policy level
challenges and taking action, without addressing specifically what
said actions should be.
8. Is there reason to believe either writer is biased?
It was not clear whether Spector, a physician and professor, had a
particular bias but it there were no glaringly unsupported or biased
statements that stood out in his presentation. Seffrin, however, was
the president of an organization that depends on private and public
funding to survive, and must prove not only its utility, but also its
progress to obtain that funding. It is known that both individuals and
group funding enterprises prefer that their money goes to a winning or
at least hopeful cause, which explains the bias behind Seffrins opening
and closing statements, respectively: We are winning, and We now
have the knowledge and know-how to turn that potentiality into reality,
if we do the right things.
9. Which side do I feel is the most correct?
I personally feel that the No side as presented by Spector is the most
convincing, if not the most correct, as much of both sides is less
empirical than an assessment of what our priorities should be. The

question posed is whether we are winning the war on cancer, and the
data presented by Spector suggests that we are not. Also, in the
context of my understanding of ever growing environmental factors
that contribute to cancer, and the acknowledgement by both sides that
environment is the largest factor contributing to cancer as a whole, I
am more persuaded by Spectors argument that our progress is not
keeping pace with cancers global casualties and costs.