RATE PER 100,000 POPULATION 7 WHITE FEMALE CANCER DEATH RATES* BY SITE 3. TRENDS OF SITES WITH LOW RATES 1.20 1.05 0.90 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 1933 Jawbone Tongue Standardized for age on the 1940 United States population Bronchus - 75%; Mediastinum, Trachea, Other Respiratory - 25%. 1946 Standardized for age on the 1940 United States population. Funds from annual campaign available for fellowships, grants-in-aid, scholar grants, institutional research grants, special purpose (research) grants Several divisions of the society through action of their boards have made grants to research within their States. Latest year estimated. SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT, COMMITTEE ON GROWTH-TRENDS IN CANCER RESEARCH INTRODUCTION the society on the design and direction of this program. major part of the annual report of the committee has been devoted to deoperation for 6 years. The committee on growth is responsible for advising The research program of the American Cancer Society has now been in In the past the 1945 1946 NCI ACS NCI ACS NCI ACS 1948 1949 NCI ACS 1950 NCI ACS NCI ACS NCI ACS NCI 1953 1954 NOTE: AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY RESEARCH FUNDS ARE THOSE ALLOCATED FROM CAMPAIGN FUNDS, scriptions of outstanding results of a few investigations chosen on the basis of their novelty and promise for the future. It has not been possible to review the great body of solid accomplishment in the field which, though it may not catch the eye, is cumulatively of the greatest significance to the present state of the cancer problem. This year the attempt will be made to take the broader view and, through an analysis of the contemporary scene, to arrive at some definition of current trends in cancer research. The discoveries of tomorrow are latent in the trends of today. Let us take bearings on the direction toward which we appear to be sailing. THE END AND THE BEGINNING The end of cancer research is the control of cancer in man. The problem is where to begin. In a recent report of the basic policy committee on research of the American Cancer Society the question has been posed as an antithesis between fundamental and applied research. The report puts it this way: "One school of thought among scientists holds that the shortest way to the answer to cancer is through increased emphasis on basic research studies of the most fundamental type even though the immediate applicability to cancer may not be full, evident, and demonstrable. In other words, these men feel that until we know much more about life and growth processes than we do now, we cannot hope to find the answer to cancer. Another school of equally eminent scientists holds that the most promising approach to the problem is through a more or less empirical testing of chemical and biological compounds which give promise of control or eradication of cancer, and they hold that the answer will be forthcoming much more rapidly from this empirical approach, and that we may be successful before we know the scientific reason why we are successful." In the Sixth James Ewing Memorial Lecture1 Dr. C. P. Rhoads has restated the same issue in more forthright and challenging fashion. In the words of Dr. Rhoads: "Two concepts exist according to which two quite dissimilar types of work are going forward supported by cancer funds. One type, and the one principally in vogue, involves investigation on a random basis. It is designed to increase our knowledge of the natural sciences in general, in the expectation that something applicable to cancer will turn up. The other is a more direct approach originally advocated by Ewing and now achieving new support. This levels at cancer the procedures which have already proved their ability to solve major problems of disease in man. The random plan was adopted in the conviction that cancer is a special case, a mystery. Under this concept, obviously, cancer control cannot be attained by the methods useful in other fields. It is based upon the assumption that some revolutionary disclosure is required before we can approach cancer directly. We frequently hear, indeed, that nothing will serve short of exposing the secret of life itself, whatever that may mean." In his lecture Dr. Rhoads then turned to a penetrating analysis of the present status of cancer research and concluded with the following encouraging words: "It has become popular to decry the progress which has been made in the cancer field and to deprecate the possibility of advance in the future. Were history not so full of similar melancholy statements made regarding other disorders at times when irrefutable evidence to the contrary was at hand, the present cries of alarm might give concern. True, the problem is a difficult one and the techniques complex. Recall, however, that most work on cancer has been on a random basis and so has included a broad study of natural phenomena relating to growth in general. This has restricted studies designed specifically to attain chemical control of the disease. In spite of the fact that substantial funds for cancer work have been available only since 1945, and that only a small part of them has been allotted to therapeutic studies, the progress has been gratifying, indeed." This question of the balance between fundamental and applied research is one which almost always arises when administrative aspects of research are under scrutiny. It is well that it should do so because it is undeniable that those who control the pursestrings of research are in a position to exert a profound in 1 Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med., vol. 27, No. 10, October 1951. |