Recalcitrant cancer research act of 2012

Argumentive Sample Research Project ASAP

Section I.

Research Proposal

Introduce your research question and why you believe this to be a feasable topic to explore. This should be 1 paragraph. Do not use the first person point of view.

Sectuon II.

Giscussion

Introduction (attention getter, background information, thesis)

Key point 1

Key point 2

Conclusion (transition into final thoughts, reiterate key points, close out with a thouught-provoking idea)

Make sure to label each paragraph as claim, opposing viewpoint , and rebuttal. Each key point needs to have the heading.

Remember that an argumentative paper has to include your claims, opposition and rebutal. There should be enough detail in each paragraph that supports the key point.

Must include in-text citations and a reference page, and be plagiarism free!

I am willing to negotiate a fee for quaility work

Reformation of Cancer Research

Student

College

Research Proposal

Should the cancer guidelines increase research funding towards recalcitrant cancers? Due to the controversy surrounding undetectable or terminal cancers, the issue has arrived in regards to making sure that funding is provided for these cancers as they are for other forms of cancers that are more likely to see survivors. This proposal will explore the feasibility in the exploration of recalcitrant cancers.

Reformation of Cancer Research

Introduction

According to a nation-wide study conducted in 2009 by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), one in two people in the United States will be diagnosed with at least one type of cancer throughout their lifetime (“Surveillance”, n.d.). With such a shocking statistic, it is extremely imperative that American research teams continually update their practices of cancer research. Researchers must frequently analyze their active research strategies in order to remain up to date with the latest statistics and trends in the cancer world along with adjusting their research focus based on current statistical data.

Key point 1

Claim: Despite their efforts, however, research is severely lacking with many styles of cancer. Regrettably, many of the types of cancers which lack research are some of the most terminal forms of cancer. These terminal cancers are known as recalcitrant cancers, and are classified as having less than a fifty percent chance of living more than five years (“Congressional Budget”, 2012). In order to become a well versed nation, the United States government must begin to shift their research focus toward recalcitrant cancers.

Opposing viewpoint: Currently, cancer research groups are doing a superb job in analyzing several types of cancer and have made many ground breaking discoveries in both pre-emptive and post diagnostic procedures for multiple forms of cancer.

Rebuttal: Current research practices in the United States have focused a large majority of their funding on a minute amount of the cancers known. As a result of this practice, many recalcitrant cancers have become severely limited as far as the amount of research being done. In the 2010 fiscal year, the National Cancer Institute published a document showing the allocation of research funds for specific types of cancers.

Key point 2

Claim: In order to move forward with cancer research, the amount of funds allocated need to be redirected into the recalcitrant cancers that in the past have not received much funding. Cancers such as pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, lung cancer, esophageal cancer and ovarian cancer fall into this category (Healy, 2013). Each of the above mentioned cancers are in dire need of research in order to effectively gain knowledge on the disease process. As of today, the above mentioned cancers are considered to be extremely terminal, and quite often individuals diagnosed with those types will not live more than five years past diagnosis. In fact, the five-year life expectancy for the above mentioned cancers is “6% (pancreatic), 14% (liver), 16% (lung), 17% (esophageal) and 44% (ovarian)” (Healy, 2013, para. 4). One of the biggest reasons these cancers have such a low survival rate is due to the lack of research being done on the disease.

Opposing viewpoint: Some may argue that in removing funds away from cancers most frequently researched will halt further discovery for these cancers. People also say that with such great advancements already made on the disease, why stop now.

Rebuttal: The answer is simple. America must step back and look at what cancers are the most terminal and take into consideration ways in which our nation can increase the life expectancy of those cancers, while still researching the cancers America knows a great deal about on a much smaller scale. A study conducted by A. Carter and C. Nguyen looked at the distribution of funding for cancers, and analyzed it against the social burdens each cancer poses on society. It found, “a considerable mismatch between funding levels and burden” (Carter, 2012, para. 3). The study stated that the most effective way to distribute research funds was to look at the social burden the different types place on society. They state, “the most straightforward burden measurement is to count raw mortality” (Carter, 2012, para. 6). With this definition, it is quite clear that the recalcitrant cancers must receive the greater majority of the research funds, as they are the types with the greatest incidence of mortality.

Conclusion

In the years to come, cancer research must change in order to meet the increasing demands of cancer incidence and mortality rates. Research teams must begin looking at the types of cancers with the highest amount of mortality, not the types with greatest popularity. It is essential that recalcitrant cancers see an increase in the amount of money allocated toward researching these forms of terminal cancer. In order to do this, there needs to be a great restructure in the allocation and placement of cancer funding. Funds must be taken away from heavily researched areas and placed into areas with little to no known knowledge of the disease. In addition, the research framework guidelines must be revisited and updated to include studying a vast array of cancers. Recalcitrant cancers must begin to take precedence over commonly studied forms of cancer in order for America to take hold of the deadly disease. Finally, the research teams must focus their efforts in understanding ways to prevent or to detect the disease in the early stages versus solely researching treatments to reduce mortality. In understanding ways to simplify treatment protocols or eliminate the need for treatment, Americans will see a significant decrease in the mortality rate of recalcitrant cancers. In the upcoming years, if researched correctly, Americans will definitely see a greater remission rate in individuals diagnosed recalcitrant cancers as opposed to higher mortality.

References

Carter, A., Nguyen, C. (2012). A comparison of cancer burden and research spending reveals

discrepancies in the distribution of research funding. BMC Public Health, 12(256). Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/526.

Congressional Budget Office. (2012, September). Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act of 2012. Retrieved from http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s3566.pdf

Healy, M. (2013, January 4). Pancreatic, other dire cancers get a legislative nudge. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/04/news/la-heb-pancreatic-dire-cancers-law-20130103

National Cancer Institute. (2012). The National Cancer Program: Managing the Nation’s Research Portfolio. Retrieved from http://www.cancer.gov/PublishedContent/Files/ aboutnci/budget_planning_leg/plan-archives/nci_plan_2013.pdf

National Cancer Institute. (2010). NCI CAM Research Funding Portfolio Analysis FY 2010.

Retrieved from http://cam.cancer.gov/attachments/portfolio_analysis/portfolio_analysis _fy10.pdf

National Cancer Institute. (n.d.). Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. Retrieved from http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

Smith, R.A., Cokkinides, V. & Brawley, O.W. (2012). Cancer screening in the United States, 2012: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2012(62), 129-142.