All for one?

[koan]

By controlling medical research funds, you are in the position to guarantee that a cure will be found in 15 years for any disease you choose. Unfortunately, no progress on any others would be made during that period. Would you target one disease?

[Marie5656]

For the first time, Koan, you have a question I am unable to answer. I am not sure I like the concept of one above all others. What should the one be? AIDS? Cancer? I do not know if I could make that decision. Partly I think because so many diseases have touched my family over the years...AIDS, cancer, Heart Disease, CP (OK, last one not really a disease), I could not pick just one.
As for your other option, spreading it out. While it seems like a better choice, just how far do you spread it?

I know, I am probably overthinking your question. There are so many diseases out there..some that strike many, others that are rare. Where do we draw the line. You know, as I am typing I have an answer that suits me, personally. I would fund the orphan diseases..the ones that have little research or funding.

[OpenMind]

I am going to go for keeping the funding spread out. But, this is a moot question. The killer dieseases should really get the main bulk of the funds with something put aside to ease the discomfort caused by the others.
But how can you choose one killer disease over another. If I were in a position of authority, I would look to see what research is looking to be the most viable at the time and put the money on those. On the other hand, if there is not enough money for more than one research option, then the decision would have to be based on factors such as which disease was killing the most people and which research looked likely to be the most successful.
So, in the end, my vote is invalid. The other option would also have been invalid.

[sunny104]

I voted for keeping them spread out....everyone deserves a chance.....

[Casey Morgan]

This was an easy one for me actually. I can't imagine looking someone in the eye and saying sorry, you have to die, your disease isn't important enough. And discoveries made in the research of one disease may aid the research of others.

[DesignerGal]

It would be hard to determine which disease was more important than the other at the given time for me.

Originally Posted by Casey Morgan

This was an easy one for me actually. I can't imagine looking someone in the eye and saying sorry, you have to die, your disease isn't important enough. And discoveries made in the research of one disease may aid the research of others.

I agree with this in the context of the question asked. Unfortunately its the sort of statement millions of people hear every year (metaphorically speaking) in regards to malaria. Its a disease that leaves the west largely untouched by comparison to the 2 million or so children that die in the third world every year.

There is very little profit for the drug companies in finding a cure for a largely third world disease.

Very few of us remain untouched by cancer, directly or indirectly, so thats why I find it almost impossible to answer

[Casey Morgan]

Those drug companies really tee me off. I understand that they need money for research. But these days they're all about the almighty dollar. Given how many people (or is that just my own prejudice speaking?) view them, perhaps it would be great PR if they did invest money into things like finding drugs to cure malaria. Perhaps free enterprise and medicine aren't such good partners.