Morton was obtaining his results with BCG vaccines, maybe 1975? The thought that funding hasn't been sufficient is outright riotous. The fact is that funding was/is controlled by those whose best interests were/are sunk into dogma....... NIH grant review committees have a back-scratching interest in the pursuit of sexy, hot stuff. If the sexy, hot stuff doesn't work out, the basic science is nonetheless of compelling interest. Money determines that dogma doesn't die. And money wasted in the private sector is often targeted at stuff that's outrageously expensive and silly........ makes NIH stuff look solid, but benefits from the entrenched dogma among academics.
Not enough money thrown at cancer immunotherapy? Guffaw!
Some good stuff in the article. Thanks for posting it.
But with respect to vaccines? Yes, there is a ton (literally, no doubt) of data that human malignancies are immunogenic. There are virus-induced cancers (e.g., cervical) and clonotypic cancers with known, antigenic targets (e.g., B lymphoma) where vaccination is a no-brainer. But the overwhelming weight of data says that most human cancers are not immunogenic. Negative results aren't sexy, and, again, vested interests point to the positives.
I'm all for increased funding behind cancer immunotherapy. The more the better. But money wasted to date? If it had been thrown at cancer genetics and small molecules, we'd have many more cures today. |
