Analysis On Which Is More Important: Military Drones Or A Cure For Cancer

There are many diseases that plague this world, some physical and some metaphorical. Metaphorical diseases, like war and poverty, can easily be remedied, but physical diseases, like Ebola and the Zika Virus, require much more effort to rehabilitate. However, one in particular has risen above all others throughout history, the most devastating and persistent illness of all: cancer. Millions of people die from different forms of cancer every year, and the bodycount is only increasing. The way to rehabilitate the majority of the public who suffer from cancer is to create an organization, one of astronomical proportions, comprised of almost every cancer research scientist in the world. With the number of cancer patients exponentially increasing
The people opposed to this proposal would be those who believe that their nation’s funds should be put towards military standards instead of healthcare. These people often disagree with world peace and unity because they are nationalists. In Steven Salzberg’s Forbes article, “Which Is More Important: Military Drones Or A Cure For Cancer?” he writes about how the United States government chooses to place their efforts in other fields such as military funding, and he tries to justify their reasoning by stating how statistics have shown that military funding has brought more wealth to the country (Salzberg). In his article, he writes, “Which Is More Important: Military Drones Or A Cure For Cancer? The U.S. government has an answer: drones. Drones and other weapons of destruction are vastly more important than healing people” (Salzberg). This shows how the U.S. government believes more in protecting its borders than it does in helping the medical progress of its nation. Also, bureaucrats who try to privatize and gain profit from medical research would be opposed to this organization because they are against providing advanced medical resources to a public who cannot afford them; they prefer to see their profit margins increase rather than see the statistics for cancer deaths
Global government funding for a cancer research team would increase the amount of resources at the scientists’ disposal exponentially. In a paper from the Southern Political Science Association titled, “Malignant Indifference: Government Funding of Cancer Research,” author, Wendy N. Whitman Cobb, Ph.D., decides to analyze the importance and significance of government funding for cancer research by classifying the government’s numerous roles in providing extensive funds for cancer research (Malignant). In her paper, Whitman writes, “The vast majority of funding for research into cancer comes not from the well publicized efforts of groups like the American Cancer Society or university groups but instead from the US government through the National Cancer Institute” (Malignant). The US government’s involvement in cancer research reflects how government participation greatly benefits the cause by providing unparalleled funding and resources. Without the need for ineffective fundraising events and kickstarter campaigns, the organization can better use its time looking for a cure that satisfies all needs. A significant increase in funds would allow scientists to continue their research, despite the possibility of