The overarching objective of cancer research, championed by organizations like the US National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, is to "end cancer as we know it". While this statement may suggest a future with less cancer, the stark reality unfolds quite differently. My guest argues that modern medicine is not in the process of ending cancer; rather, we are accelerating the problem. Globally, the number of new cases each year is estimated to increase from 18 million in 2020 to 28 million in 2040. Cancer is intrinsically related to aging, and the incidence increases exponentially from the age of 50. Accordingly, the better we get at treating the disease and postponing death, the more cancer there will be in the population. Jarle Breivik (MD, PhD, EdD) is professor and head of the Department of Behavioral Medicine at the University of Oslo. He is on a mission to change the scientific discourse and the public perception of cancer. In his new book Making Sense of Cancer: From Its Evolutionary Origin to Its Societal Impact and the Ultimate Solution, Jarle discusses how aging, cancer, and death are essential elements of what it means to be human. Eradicating these elements would signify not just the conclusion of cancer but the potential demise of humanity itself. He is internationally recognized for his research on the evolutionary dynamics of cancer, and his thought-provoking analyses in PNAS, EMBO Reports, Scientific American, Wired Magazine, and the New York Times have stimulated a profound international debate about the understanding of cancer and cancer research. @jarlebreivik, LinkedinResources:Why we won't cure cancer, op-ed, New York Times (May 2016) (Jarle Breivik)Why I hope to die of cancer (Jarle Breivik)Dying of cancer is the best death, British Medical Journal, (Richard Smith)The end of cancer would mean the end of humanity (Richard Smith)Key highlightsIntroduction - 00:24Understanding cancer - 02:40Whether treating cancer can cause more cancer - 09:30Why the dominant global narrative on eliminating cancer is wrong - 10:55Where is the human desire to live a long life taking us? - 14:45The ethics of cancer treatment in high-income and low-income countries - 18:00Should we prioritize treating some types of cancer over others? - 28:27The substantial feedback generated by an op-ed in The New York Times - 36:08How humans cope with crises and the need for optimism – 41:00 HostProfessor Dan Banik (@danbanik @GlobalDevPod)Apple Google Spotify YouTubeSubscribe: https://globaldevpod.substack.com/ Host:Dan Banik LinkedInX: @danbanik @GlobalDevPod Subscribe:Apple Spotify YouTubehttps://in-pursuit-of-development.simplecast.com

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related