There are few illnesses as emotive –or as misunderstood –as cancer. Even the way we talk about cancer is something of an anomaly. It’s rarely directed, often couched in allusions and circumlocution.
Despite the ubiquity of the word, cancer is no single monolithic entity – it is an entire family of diseases, each with huge variation in prognosis and treatment. And as cancer arises from mutations in our cells, there is even significant variation on an individual basis. These facets make it inherently complex, and in this crucible of confusion it’s hardly surprising that misconceptions abound.
Circumventing the misunderstandings around cancer has become a prime focus of the Irish Cancer Society (ICS) who have recently launched a "Get cancer" campaign, aimed at increasing public understanding and cancer outcomes. It has been a tangible success, with a massive increase to traffic to the information pages on cancer.ie, and a positive upswing in those calling the Freephone cancer nurse helpline. Yet it has not been without its critics – in the Irish Times, Dr Muiris Houston branded it a 'disgrace'.
As a physicist working in cancer research and heavily involved in science outreach, I find Dr Houston’s anathema perplexing - the most prevalent image of the campaign depicts a scientist sitting at her laboratory bench, with the text “I want to get cancer before it gets you”. The meaning of this is obvious – by better understanding cancer, we can prevent and cure more cases in future. This is remarkably positive for another reason - while the general public might associate medical research primarily with physicians, this isn’t exactly accurate. More often, doctors form the last link in the chain; behind every treatment advance there is an army of not only biologists, but chemists, physicists, mathematicians and scientists of all disciplines working closely together.
Indeed, it’s rather hard to read Dr Houston’s complaint as anything than a rather pedantic demand for quotation marks on something which is clear to the public, who are more than capable of parsing the meaning of the slogan in context. The objection that it is somehow insensitive to those who have lost someone to cancer is a somewhat nebulous argument. The same objection could be aimed at road safety adverts which have been effective in reducing road deaths. Cancer is an inherently visceral topic, and no matter how it is covered there will be those who find fault with that approach.
Yet the reality is that half of us will be affected by cancer in our lifetime, and all of us will inevitably be touched by its malign influence. Sadly, when it comes to cancer, none of us have a monopoly on loss. If we are to improve survival rates further, then open and unimpeded discussion is a much healthier scenario than a misguided appeal to sensitivities. Indeed, the very idea of ‘respecting’ cancer is a throwback to the hushed euphemisms of the past, and the poor outcomes associated with this needless stigmatisation.
What is crucial is that we understand rather than fear cancer. There have been huge strides made in treating cancers, over the past 40 years, cancer survival has effectively doubled. And by improving public knowledge of the knowledge of disease, we can increase this even further. That the ICS have launched a campaign imploring people to learn about this family of diseases is laudable undertaking, and one that will save ultimately save lives by encouraging them to take measures to improve their health and not to ignore signs that warrant clinical attention.
This need has become even more urgent with the rise of the internet, where the void of reliable information is filled by charlatans and fools, eager to propagate dubious myths or hawk ostensible panaceas. These supposed cures run the gauntlet from diets to elixirs, often presented with the veneer of medicine and the borrowed grab of scientific sounding terminology. Yet while these are inevitably devoid of evidence and sometimes actively dangerous, patients often risk being exploited, and the campaigns by groups such as the ICS and Cancer Research UK are vital in preventing this.
If we are to truly improve our cancer survival, there is simply no substitute for public understanding. Access to reliable information, and the awareness that this exists is of paramount importance in this endeavour, even if it rankles some sensibilities.
Dr David Robert Grimes is a physicist, cancer researcher and science writer
