"1 in 2 People Will Get Cancer" - a Sensational Headline Worthy of a Sensation

On the 4th of February (last Thursday?) the Cancer Council(?) in the UK publicised a story with the headline that '1 in 2 people will get cancer'.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31096218
http://publications.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/lifetimerisk.html

Jeremy Vine interviewed the Scientific Information Office of the Cancer Research Council (name?), and attacked her for what he considered revenue-raising fear-mongering.

His argument was along the following lines: our risk of contracting cancer is increasing primarily because we are living longer lives; and although the chance of contracting cancer is increasing, so is our chance of surviving it. This, then, should have been a good news story, not a frightening cry.

This struck me as an example of relatively accurate scientific dissemination that has been unfairly vilified.

At no point in the interview was the claim at the centre of the debate disputed. The findings, it seems, are clear: half the people in Britain born after 1960 will at some point in their lives be diagnosed by cancer. There was no statistical trickery, no word-play that distorted the meaning, nor provisos about correlation vs. correlation. On the contrary: the fact is blatant, and it is shocking.

During the argument, Vine asked the CRC representative if she had a background in medicine. When she replied that she has a degree in biology, he responded condescendingly, insinuating that she had not the appropriate background to be discussing the issue. This was disingenuous: it makes no difference whether his interviewee was a medical professional or not. Cancer is ostensibly a medical topic, but the issue at stake here is a matter of the public dissemination of statistical findings, and so more related to epidemiology and public relations than to basic medicine. A degree in biology is most likely just as apt a background for this topic as a degree in medicine. Why would a doctor's title have equipped her to better understand an epidemiological finding?

We could do with more good news. We could certainly do with less fear-mongering. But the undisputed fact that half of the British population born after 1960 will at some point be diagnosed with cancer is shocking, relevant, poignant, and it is news. The headlines were in the public interest, they were concise and attention-grabbing, and they were accurate. They were exactly what one hopes a charity like the Cancer Research Council would be producing.