We haven't been able to take payment
You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Act now to keep your subscription
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Your subscription is due to terminate
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account, otherwise your subscription will terminate.

Cancer treatment

Response to leading article

Sir, With regard to your leading article (Aug 30), I have never said we should “abandon” the search for a cure for cancer. Nor that cancer isn’t curable; clearly it can be, not least in childhood leukaemia where I have conducted most of my research for 40 years.

At a media briefing last week, I argued that we need a comprehensive approach that seeks to prevent as many cancers as possible, diagnose and intervene early, and to find innovative treatments that work for longer, regardless of whether they “cure” cancer by eradicating it completely, or hold it in check.

Your leader attributed to me a “pessimistic” attitude about the scale of the task of finding better cancer therapies. While I do believe there is substantial biological complexity in cancer, I also think we now have a much better grasp of it. My argument was that in adults with late-stage cancer, a simple “magic bullet” is unlikely, and that we need more subtle approaches. Far from being a prophet of doom, I believe there are very good reasons to be optimistic about the future of cancer treatment.

professor mel greaves

Advertisement

Director of the Centre for Evolution and Cancer, the Institute of Cancer Research, London