Taking Sides Analysis Report (Long Form)
Name: Kaylee Applegate
Course: Human Biology 1090 002-151
Book: Taking Sides
Issue Number: 4 Title of Issue: Are We Winning the War on Cancer?
1. Author and major thesis of the Yes side: John R. Seffrin, American Cancer Society president, claims we are winning the war on 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 overall there has been very little progress in the war on cancer.
3. What fallacies of question-framing are made by the authors of the text? When speaking of Reynold
Spector of the "No" side of this debate, many of the questions he asks are falsifiable because they are biased. He argues his case and then asks a question that poses the answer he would give--he only asks the questions that will have your answer agree with him that we are not making great strides in our war against cancer and therefore, are losing the fight.
4. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side:
Yes: 1. For the first time, we know what it will take to win the war on cancer, based on evidence.
2. If we fail to act on the knowledge we already have about cancer, it will become the leading cause of death by 2018. We know of some ways to prevent certain cancers, such as not smoking or chewing tobacco to prevent lung cancer, and by stopping those things we can increase our chances of eliminating cancer as a major health problem in the US.
No: 1. When looking at two patients who both have malignant tumors, the patient whose tumor is detected at an earlier stage will appear to live longer than the other even though the treatment they both receive is essentially useless.
2. Cancer therapy is decades behind that of cardiovascular and stroke disease because cancer related deaths are still high and cardiovascular and stroke deaths after their own therapy has decreased over the years.
5. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented by each side:
Yes: 1. John Seffrin claims multiple times that we know how to prevent cancer. That is only true in some cases, such as lung cancer and its relation to smoking. We do not know how to prevent cervical cancer or prostate cancer--we have screenings for early detection, but even with smoking, we do not know exactly what it is that causes cancer so we do not necessarily know how to prevent it.
2.We know what it will take to win the war on cancer. I don't think this statement is 100% true yet-when we have a cure for every type of cancer, then we will know and have the resources to win the battle over cancer.
No: 1. Reynold Spector states how we do not know the causes of most cancers, which I agree with, and we do not know if the problem is genetic, epigenetic, or something totally unknown.
2. He also states that "we do not know how to meaningfully intervene."

6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the Yes side as you can.
-John Seffrin "we now know essentially what it will take to finish the job"-He fails to back up this statement because he does not tell us how we are "finishing up the job"-if we had that knowledge we would be putting an end to cancer.
-We can eliminate cancer this century, by doing the right things
-He focuses a lot on his idea that getting rid of tobacco will end the cancers that tobacco causes, so getting rid of tobacco is the way to end cancer.
-We have the knowledge, today, to end cancer.
7. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can.
-Early detection cancer screenings are unnecessary for some individuals, along with the treatment.
-The war on cancer has not gone well
-Small tumors would not harm the patient if left untreated but can lead to unnecessary and sometimes mutilating therapy.
-It is difficult to predict which cancer patients need treatment
-The author is very biased in choosing which results to accept and which to ignore. He often contradicts his own point of argument.
8. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her thesis?
Why?
All in all, John R. Seffrin impressed me as being the most empirical in presenting his thesis that we are winning the war on cancer because he was straight-forward in setting out all of his points of discussion and developed them and built them up with detail in his speech. He focused on areas such as the fact that we know more about cancer now than ever before, and with that knowledge we know how to treat and prevent some cancers using the evidence that it has been tried and has already proven successful.
We know that by not smoking, we significantly decrease the chance of getting lung cancer. We have been able to prove this through experience. John R. Seffrin also focused on a major point of intervention. He talked about how if we do not intervene with tobacco companies, the cancer rate will continue to increase, caused by the use of tobacco. As a society, we need to stop those advertisements of tobacco and advertise more about cancer risks and where to get screened and treated. By discussing the topic of early detection by cancer screenings, we are able to treat more patients before the cancer progresses, learn more about the disease, and therefore, win the war on cancer. If the public is well- informed, funds towards the research of cancer will increase and everyone will benefit because the more we know, the more we can help and the more lives we can save.
9. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do they have these biases?
Yes because especially Reynold Spector seems to contradict a lot of the points he tries to defend. I think each of the writers are biased because they both believe or want to believe in a certain thing-in this case we either are or aren't winning the war on cancer-so once they have their mind made up about which side they are taking they must defend that side, even when points come across that are more valid than their own.
10. 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 the Yes side is more correct because there are many people in my own life who have been diagnosed with cancer and whether they were diagnosed in stage 1,3 or one man I know in stage 4, doctors have provided treatment that today has given them a cancer-free life.