MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Would you ask for the sponsorship money back?

cantab34

I'd be interested to see the sources of gibby's accusations about cancer research charities.
Which charity "admitted last year that they have got no further forward and that 99% of their research is a waste of time" and where is this admission? New treatments for cancer are developed by scientists and clinicians all the time (including new forms of chemotherapy, new surgical techniques and new ways of delivering radiotherapy). Of course you can't guarantee that each new piece of research will deliver positive results, but that's surely the point of research: it demonstrates whether something will or won't help treat cancer patients. Without "failures", there would be no way to assess an older treatment against a new one.
Using animals in research for cancer is actually very rare in the UK, partly because we are more heavily regulated than almost anywhere else in the world. The vast majority of animals used are fruit flies because they are very useful for genetic research. Of the remainder, most are fish and mice/rats. An incredibly small number of larger mammals are used under very tight guidelines and only when there are no alternatives - the myth about people cutting dogs up without anaesthetic is spread by animal rights groups and is completely untrue (although it did happen many years ago before modern medical ethics were developed). Cats and dogs tend to be used in the final stages of testing cancer drugs for animals to treat e.g. feline leukaemia, which is a legal requirement.
The main reason more people are getting cancer is because we're all living longer - cancer is primarily a disease of older people. If you look at mortality (i.e. how many people get cancer and die from that cancer), rates have been dropping for decades, almost entirely thanks to new treatments and screening techniques developed by scientists. For example, a woman diagnosed with breast cancer in the early 70s had about a 50:50 chance of living for five years, whereas a woman diagnosed today would have a more than 80% chance of living at least five years.
I'd be particularly keen to see the data showing that 80% of US doctors wouldn't use current cancer cures - frankly, that's just ridiculous.
Finally, as a number of people have stated, most scientists are not in any way highly paid - a typical salary for a researcher is £20-28k.

crandall

No - but I'd make a note never to sponsor her again.

morg_monster

I am gobsmacked by a couple of the posts in this thread. The idea that all Cancer Research scientists spend all day injecting little fluffy bunnies with nasty chemicals that probably won't work! These people clearly have no idea of the drug development process. Yes, it is true that most potential treatments never get as far as being used on patients. But those that do, look very promising and may lead to much improved survival, or less side effects, etc. As well as paying for lab work for "early stage" drug development, CR donations also fund many clinical trials in patients all over the UK, once drugs have been shown to have real potential. Working in this area (research in treatments and treatment strategies in patients with cancer) I have completely the opposite view to the two posters. There is more research than ever going on. Patients are living longer than ever.

In particular response to geri1965's claim
"I think the cancer research industry is one big money making exercise with no proven successes that I am aware of." No proven successes?! Seriously, are you joking? Do you ever read the papers?
cantab34 has already given a stat about breast cancer, I'd like to give a few more.
Testicular cancer - before the 1970/80s, survival at 5 years was around 60%. Now it is up to 85-95%, depending on stage.
Leukemia - in the 1960s, a person had a 14% chance of surviving more than 5 years. Now their chance is over 50%.
There are so many more, but I don't have the time to search right now. Geri1965, do you think these improvements in survival just happened by chance?!

Yes - cancer incidence is increasing. This is because the incidence of other diseases are decreasing. People have to die of something. 50 years ago it was TB, childbirth complications, lung cancer cos most adults smoked. Now people are much healthier, avoid many of these killers and so live to their 80s and 90s. The most common cancers (prostate, bowel, lung, breast) are mainly (not totally, obviously) diseases of old age. If you live to 85 without any major health problems like heart disease or Alzheimers, chances are you will die of cancer.

Also yes, treatments for cancer are usually pretty nasty. Well they've got to be - cancer is a horrible disease that can kill quickly. You aren't going to fight it off with a few aspirin and an early night are you? Do you honestly think that CR have a secret cupboard of magic pills that cure all cancers with no side-effects, but they just like watching everyone suffer with chemo? That is one of the current big issues. As the population ages and cancer incidence rises - how do we treat them? Who wants to give a frail 90 year old chemo with such awful side effects?

Finally I really found these two posts offensive as I'm sure many other users of this site who work for cancer research charities/orgs might, as might people who have, or whose loved ones have, benefited from being on a clinical trial or by taking a new drug which CR money helped to develop.
The idea that we just fanny about all day without doing anything very useful and even the insinuation that we could find a cure tomorrow if we just somehow tried a bit harder is offensive to me. The only thing that mitigates this is the fact that the two posters clearly have no idea of the cost and magnitude of the drug development process that they are deriding.

Right now I'm off to have a cup of tea to calm my nerves. Which, by the way, I pay for, not Cancer Research!!!

hallucenogenic_midas

As another Research Scientsist, I too agree with the previous posts defending cancer research. Cancer is an evil, horrible disease, one for which we may never find a cure or effective treatment, but surely it's still worth trying to find one?!

Myself and my husband spent 8 years each at University. Now armed with PhD's, we are £50k in debt and earn less than £25k a year each....just to help try and find cures and treatments for such nasty diseases.

Due to the way it functions, cancer is an unpredictable and difficult illness to treat. Outside of campaigning, the money the charities make and the government funding provided for research, does not go to the staff, it goes to the very expenisve lab equipment that is required for the study of cancer...of which only a small percentage involves working with animals! Of course we dont understand it yet but what's the alternative, to stop trying?!

For sure, let the friend keep the money. After all, even half a marathon is still a huge achievement. I couldn't do it, even without a hangover...could you?!

hallucenogenic_midas

I would also like to now point out the number of Scientists that have already posted in this thread.

Note that we are signed up to MoneySaving Expert.com ... so we're all high flyers are we?!

Give the charity the money...you can be safe in the knowledge that it isnt going to the researchers!!

Arcoiris

gibby wrote: »

I wouldnt throw my money away to Cancer research in the first place

donating to cancer research means you give to very highly paid scientists to test on animals - often without care of pain killers
they do this massively, cats, dogs, rabbits, primates etc
_________________________________________________

I agree. I don't support any charities that perform experiments on animals. (However, scientists are not necessarily highly paid I am one and I know!!) I'd give my money to charities such as the Hadwen Trust http://www.drhadwentrust.org/, which promotes alternative methods instead of experiments on animals.

But as the question is hypothetical and refers to the principle of asking for money back from a chariry, I would not ask for my money back, but I'd ask my friend to donate the same amount to the charity, that way the charity benefits, my friend doesn't have to feel gilty and I keep my trust in him

rag_doll

I don't give to cancer research but if it was for a charity I support I wouldn't ask for the money back & I wouldn't sponsor this person again, unless it was for a sponsored 'pub crawl!!'

morg_monster

"very highly paid scientists"

Yes just want to echo again, no-one goes into cancer research work for the money, I promise you!!! Especially not the people who actually do lab work.

Realised in my rant above I never replied to the topic - I wouldn't ask for the money back but would hope they would be a bit grovelly... I might ask "when are you going to do the other half then?!". If I'd sponsored them £50, they would have to be a pretty good friend, so I could have a bit of a dig!

It is one of my bugbears with the sponsoring websites like justgiving - the money goes out straightaway, whether the person actually completes their challenge or not.

Pip-squeak_3

No I wouldn't ask for it back as it went to charity but I wouldn't sponsor them next time.

harryhound

I'm always a little bit worried about the probity standards of charities; ever since 'phoning the charity commission (if that is the right body) to ask about a supposed charity and getting "Oh we don't seem to have had any accounts from these people for 5 years, do you want a complaints form?"
Similarly, there seem to be a lot of people angling for a free holiday doing something like "walking the Great Wall of China" provided they can get sponsorship of (say) 10K.

Running 26 miles, might be a personal goal for the runner, but I don't how the act in its self advances human happiness; I'd rather sponsor someone to (say) man the 'phone lines at The Samaritans on Christmas day.

So if you come to me waving a pence per mile sponsorship form, I will cross out the deal and write "all or nothing" and expect to see your finishing certificate, before you get your cheque. It would also help if you came seeking sponsorship, after mugging up on the charitable aim and the details of the particular charity, including the process for getting Chancellor Darling to chip in with some tax relief.

Harry