Cancer Research Funding: The Bias Against Men, By Mrs (Dr) Abigail Knight (Florida)

The narrative around cancer research funding is a glaring example of how society often sidelines men's health, particularly when it comes to prostate cancer.

https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/cancer-research-funding-seems-biased

The data is stark, and the implications are infuriating. Breast cancer, predominantly a women's health issue, gets showered with funding, awareness campaigns, and public sympathy, think pink ribbons plastered everywhere from AFL games to yogurt containers. Meanwhile, prostate cancer, which kills men at comparable rates, is left scraping for scraps. Emil Kirkegaard's recent piece nails it: breast cancer research funding dwarfs prostate cancer funding by roughly six to one, despite the two diseases having similar mortality rates. This isn't just a discrepancy; it's a systemic middle finger to men.

Prostate cancer is a men's disease, 100% male, no exceptions. It's the second most common cancer in men worldwide, with about 1.4 million new cases and 375,000 deaths annually, according to global cancer statistics. Breast cancer, while devastating, isn't exclusively a women's issue (men get it too, though rarely), and it clocks in around 2.3 million cases and 685,000 deaths yearly. The mortality gap isn't massive, prostate cancer kills at a rate that demands equal attention. Yet the funding bodies pour billions into breast cancer research while prostate cancer gets pocket change. Kirkegaard cites figures showing breast cancer research raking in over $700 million annually in the U.S. alone, while prostate cancer limps along with barely $100 million. X posts back this up, with users pointing out that even as prostate cancer deaths have started to outpace breast cancer in some regions, the funding needle barely moves.

It's not about science or logic, it's about feelings and optics. Breast cancer has a PR machine that's the envy of any marketing firm. Pink ribbons, "save the tatas" campaigns, and celebrity endorsements create a cultural juggernaut. Women's health is framed as a universal cause, a sacred cow no one dares question. Meanwhile, prostate cancer? Crickets. No blue ribbons on every cereal box, no AFL players wearing prostate cancer awareness socks. Men are expected to just "deal with it," suck it up, get your PSA test, and hope the system doesn't let you die quietly. This is classic feminist gynocentrism: society values women's suffering while men's health issues are relegated to the back burner.

The manosphere has been shouting about this double standard for years. Men's health isn't just underfunded; it's culturally invisible. Prostate cancer screening, like PSA testing, is often criticised as "overused" or "costly" (a Swedish study pegs rising prostate cancer costs to increased testing and new drugs), yet early detection for breast cancer via mammograms is hailed as a triumph of modern medicine. The hypocrisy is glaring. If men's lives were valued equally, we'd see funding parity, aggressive awareness campaigns, and public health policies that don't treat prostate cancer like an afterthought.

Don't fall for the counterarguments that feminists try to justify this. Some claim breast cancer's higher prevalence or broader societal impact (e.g., affecting younger women or families) warrants the funding gap. But prevalence alone doesn't explain a sixfold disparity when mortality rates are neck-and-neck. Others argue that breast cancer's advocacy success is just "better marketing," not bias. That's a cop-out. If society cared about men's lives, we wouldn't need to beg for scraps, governments and NGOs would step up. The reality is, men's health issues don't tug at heartstrings or win political points, so they're ignored.

What's the fix? First, men need to stop being stoic about their health and demand better. Push for awareness, talk about prostate cancer, share the stats, and call out the funding gap. Second, support organisations fighting for men's health, which actually try to close the research gap despite limited resources. Third, question the narrative. When you see another pink ribbon campaign, ask why there's no equivalent for men. The system won't change unless men make noise. Time for blue ribbons.

This isn't just about prostate cancer, it's about a culture that devalues men's lives. The funding bias is a symptom of a deeper issue: society expects men to be disposable, to shoulder the burden silently while women's causes get the spotlight. It's time to flip the script. Men deserve better, and it starts with calling out the lies and demanding equal treatment because our men's lives are worth it.