Humans are enthralled with making predictions that range from bold to outright wacky.
From the Y2K crisis or ending federal debt in 2001, to Nostradamus or the Mayan end
of the world, people like to believe that it is possible to predict the outcomes of
complex issues. Over the past ten years, the idea of ending or curing cancer has continued
to evolve as a near-term goal among seemingly rational people. How could this type
of prediction have gained enough traction to influence scientific research at a time
when actual drug discovery successes have been rather dismal? Market research reveals
that target-first oncology R&D has not developed superior treatments to supplant existing
chemotherapies, but has led to more expensive treatments. These sales numbers have
not only misled, but have inspired scientists to believe that target-first oncology
research will dramatically impact those 570,000 cancer mortalities each year in the
near future. This talk presents this contradictory evidence, attempts to tone down
the scientific bravado wrapped around the expectations of target-first oncology research,
and highlights an obvious but somehow neglected pivotal ingredient of oncology research
– novel chemical diversity. It will explore whether the hope of finding a cure has
clouded scientists' judgments. The brutal challenges of drug development, including
high failure rates, unpredictable timelines, and irreproducible data, are also interwoven
into the discussion to add a little more reality to this noble endeavor. No predictions
or prophecies will be made. However, the reality of further extending the lives of
cancer patients without dramatically expanding the chemical space examined in oncology
research is questioned.
