Looks like the war on cancer has "failed" as spectacularly as AI.
In a recent post
http://jimdavies.blogspot.com/2006/08/shame-on-you-skeptic-magazine.html
I scolded Skeptic magazine for it's AI-is-a-failure article. In it I suggested that cancer research has suffered from the same fate. Turns out this is even truer than I could have imagined. In a wonderful article by Jerome Groopman, "The Thirty Years' War"
http://www.jeromegroopman.com/30yr.html he describes how the "war" on cancer has done close to nothing in terms of improving cancer treatment. Most of the increased survival rates are attributable to improved early screening and other prevention. As with AI, cancer research has suffered from grandiose predictions. As with AI, it's complicated, difficult, and enormously important. How about it, Skeptic? If they want to be consistent, they should write an article bashing cancer research too.
The article is fabulous; I encourage everyone to at least give a shot at reading it.
http://jimdavies.blogspot.com/2006/08/shame-on-you-skeptic-magazine.html
I scolded Skeptic magazine for it's AI-is-a-failure article. In it I suggested that cancer research has suffered from the same fate. Turns out this is even truer than I could have imagined. In a wonderful article by Jerome Groopman, "The Thirty Years' War"
http://www.jeromegroopman.com/30yr.html he describes how the "war" on cancer has done close to nothing in terms of improving cancer treatment. Most of the increased survival rates are attributable to improved early screening and other prevention. As with AI, cancer research has suffered from grandiose predictions. As with AI, it's complicated, difficult, and enormously important. How about it, Skeptic? If they want to be consistent, they should write an article bashing cancer research too.
The article is fabulous; I encourage everyone to at least give a shot at reading it.
Comments