Today was the annual Terry Fox Run, supporting cancer research, awareness and care. As a general rule, I have very little sympathy for charities. Most support themselves by keeping enough cash flow to pay for their own employment and little else.
Don’t get me wrong – I think Terry Fox himself was courageous and most definitely a local hero – but I think the administrators of the Terry Fox Foundation are greedy and self-serving.
From the Canada Revenue Agency charity listings:
In 2009, the Terry Fox Foundation had:
- 102 million in assets, held in cash and investments
- 27 million in donations, interest, and government grants
This is in 2009 alone. How much did they spend? Where did they spend it?
- 3.75 million on fundraising and management
- 2 million on advertising and other office expence
But what about the research??? What about finding the “cure” for cancer??
- 1.3 million spent for research funding and grants
Enough said.
Click here to investigate your favourite Canadian charity!
AlbinoMouse 
As a lifelong supporter of the Terry Fox run, it is difficult for me to think of it as anything but a family September tradition. I feel like there has been a lot of media attention in recent months encouraging the support of charities, but most often, this support is blind. While the end goal is almost always a worthy goal, little to no scrutiny is placed upon these organizations.
A recent Canadian Cancer Society TV ad for the Cops for Cancer fundraiser perfectly exemplifies this: In the ad, children explain that the cops ‘ride a really long way and then you give your donations which are then given to the scientists to find cures for children’s cancer’. But, how much of your money actually makes it to the scientists? In 2009, the CCS received just over $22 million in donations. Of this money, $14 million was spent on compensation, almost $3 million on consulting $3 million on occupancy costs and over $1 million on advertising. So, how much is left for the scientists? $3 million. If you donated $100, just over $13 would go to research. But because this message is delivered by kids, no one questions it.
This was actually my first go at actually looking at a charity’s numbers, and I’m pretty shocked at the results. You can be sure I will be bookmarking the link above and referencing it whenever I’m approached to donate money!
And all that $13 is just enough for the kindly, compassionate researchers to buy some mice, chop ’em up and publish a paper calling for more study.
“We have learned well how to treat cancer in mice and rats but we still can’t cure people.” – Professor Colin Garner, Accelerator MS Is a Powerful New Tool, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, Vol. 27, No. 15, 2007
“[mouse models are] woefully inadequate…if you look at the millions and millions and millions of mice that have been cured, and you compare that to the relative success, or lack thereof, that we’ve achieved in the treatment of metastatic disease clinically, you realize that there just has to be something wrong with those models.” – Homer Pearce, research fellow at Eli Lilly. Fortune, 9th March, 2004.
“People are very complacent with their animal models. But this begs the question of whether there exists a good model of cancer.” – Dr. Andy Maniotis, The American Journal of Pathology, 155: 739, 1999
“Over a 25-year period, the United States National Cancer Institute screened 40,000 species of plants for anti-tumour activity and, as a result, several proved sufficiently safe and effective on the basis of animal tests to be included in human trials. Unfortunately, all of these were either ineffective in treating human cancer or too toxic to consider for general use. Thus, in 25 years of this extensive programme, not a single anti-tumour agent safe and effective enough for use by patients has yet emerged.” – N.R. Farnsworth and J.M. Pezzuto, paper presented at the University of Panama workshop sponsored by the International Foundation for Science, 1982. Reproduced in The Cruel Deception by Dr. Robert Sharpe, 1988.
etc. etc.
Hi John, Brian – Thanks for you comments.
You would be surprised at how little $13, or even $1300, buys you in research. And compounding the problem, most of the money that finally trickles through to research does not get applied towards patient-care research. A lot of it goes towards basic science type research. I think of a lot of fundraisers lead donors to think that their money is going to help patients, but really, most of it ends up in the pockets of administrators or in research that is only distantly related to actual patient care.
It’s a good idea for a future post actually. On my “things to do” list…