Alaa Aldeen Abbas

BIOL-1090
Taking Sides

Cancer
1. Author and major thesis of the Yes side.
American Cancer Society president John R. Seffrin claims we are winning the war against cancer and that
it is possible to eliminate the disease as a major public health problem.
2. Author and major thesis of the No side.
Physician and professor of medicine Reynold Spector argues that the gains made against cancer have
been limited and that over all there has been very little progress in the war on cancer.
3. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side.
Seffrin states that the number of new cancer cases worldwide will grow to 15 million doubling the
number of deaths to as many as 12 million. He also adds that 70% of these deaths will occur in
developing country. Also, Seffrin points out that tobacco use was responsible for taking 100 million lives.
However, Reynolds states that since 1971, federal government has spent over $105 billion on effort to
cure cancer. This is a staggering number and even today, there is little to show for spending so much
money. Also, Reynold states that 60% of lung cancer patients die within one year of diagnosis, even if
they have been provided with best available therapy, and only 15% survive the next five years.
4. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented by each side.
Seffrin implies that tobacco will be responsible for 4.9 million deaths worldwide, he does not provide
any justification as to how he came up with this number. Seffrin also further implies that 650 million
people alive today will eventually die, half of whom are children, due to tobacco use. Again this is a
hypothetical statement and author does not give any supporting data.
However, Reynolds implies that prostate cancer screening is not useful as it is necessary to determine
which prostate cancer detected will harm the patient. Any detection is detection and helps in getting
patient seek more help. Reynold implies that Bevacizumab is not so different from chemotherapy. This is
plainlya opinion and the fact is that Bevacizumab is the best marginal drug used to treat certain cancer
criteria.
5. Briefly identify as many fallacies(lack of reasoning or validity) on the Yes side as you can.
Seffrin states that with the recent advances in our understanding of cancer, nearly 12 million people
need to lose their lives. This statement does not make any sense. First of all, if we have already won the

war against cancer or are even close in un covering the mystery then why is there any need for human
life to end? And what good will the death of 12 million people do for cancer research?
6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can.
Reynold states that in a study, no lives were saved during the screening, however many Positive patients
with prostate cancer were treated. If many patients were treated, then there has to be that many lives
save. Life prolongation is also life saved.
7. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her thesis?
Why?
Reynold Spector has impressed me the most being the most empirical as he has provided a lot of
supported facts in his thesis. His argument was more scientific and he supported his ideas on most parts
with facts and figure.
8. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do they have these biases?
John R. Seffrin relied less on scientific facts and I feel that his article was rushed and poorly managed.
Being American Cancer Society President, I expected his work to be more thorough, but in his article
facts were scarce and he put in more of his opinion. This was vastly, because he is expecting a
breakthrough soon, but until then all his ideas are speculations and hence wont have any supported
documentation
9. Which side (Yes or No) do you personally feel is most correct now that you have reviewed the
material in these articles? Why?
I feel Reynold Spector is the most correct as he has done extensive research and presented his data in
very organized manner. He talked about different cancers and their current cures, pointing out their
inefficiency in the process.