Hi Savio,

First, thank you for your feedback! It brings a big smile to my face to know that you enjoy my posts.

Second, I agree that Lo (and others among his colleagues) has made a bold proposal that does, in fact, provide a solution to the two problems you described above. For me the crux of the issue is whether or not cancer is 'curable.' Given the many carcinogens and the massive capital already thrown at the problem, it may be that cancer is treatable only in the same way that the common cold is treatable. In other words, it may turn out that applying financial engineering to finding a cure for cancer simply finances projects that are just as spurious as were sub-prime mortgages. I am not questioning the financial engineering aspect, but the offering up of anecdotal evidence (essentially, hope in narrative form) as evidence that cancer may be cured.

Third, yes you are correct that people could purchase into the "cancer cure fund" for $3 but then you need a thousand more contributors, or 10 billion lottery tickets issued. This also presupposes that: a cure for cancers may be found, and that $30 billion is all that is needed to substantially change the problem. So far $400 billion in biotech investments (the technology called upon to cure cancers) has not resulted in returns on capital. As always, that $30 billion needs to compete with other investments on a benefits vs. costs and returns vs. risks framework. Could we better change the world by deploying that $30 billion to better vaccinations? Better education? Mosquito nets? And so forth. The nature of hope is that it always exists by human will power alone, even in the face of strong evidence against for what is hoped. In this case, the cost of hope has been enormous.

With big smiles!

Jason