Ovarian tumors if discovered in stages 1 or 2 the survival rate 10 years after diagnosis is high, almost 90%. In stages 3 and 4 it falls from 20% to 10%. So, should more emphasis be on detecting cancer earlier, so that the survival rate would be higher? 566,000 Americans will die of cancer this year, our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and friends. In the U.S billions will be spent to save these late-stage patients trying to deliver better drugs and chemotherapy’s that might kill a cancer at its strongest. More than a third of all Americans, some 120 million people will be diagnosed with cancer sometimes in their lives. There illnesses may be invisible now, but it’s out there. And that presents a great and largely unexamined opportunity. Find and treat their cancers early and that 566,000 figure will shrink. So, should more emphasis be put on cancer detection, and less on cancer cures? It seems that early detection is an afterthought in cancer research. The pharmaceutical industry spends nearly 8 billion dollars annually on cancer research, most of it steered toward drug development and late-stage treatments. The Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Foundation spent $180 million on cures in 2007. The Millken Prostate Cancer foundation spent about $14 million annually pursuing a cure for prostate cancer; The National Cancer Institute spent just 8% of it’s 2007 budget, less than $400 million, on detection and diagnosis research. So, should more emphasis be on early detection or late stage recovery?