Breast cancer receives half a billion dollars more funding for research than does the latter, despite the latter being more common: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-muc...
I'm loathe to link to the Daily Caller, but it's a pretty neutral piece with no politics, nonetheless:
https://prostate.org.nz/2014/01/men-die-earlier-womens-healt...
That's an understatement. According to my mother's medical school teachers, all men get prostate cancer, but it develops pretty slowly.
Is there anywhere to keep up-to-date on this specific topic, if it is indeed nearly inevitable?
But perhaps more research for breast cancer will lead to better treatments for all cancers , even if the focus on one cancer is excessive
Honest question: If this were an article about leukemia death rates would you have posted about prostate cancer? Most people wouldn't because it wouldn't be relevant to the article. The only way I can see this topic being relevant is if you believe in "battle of the sexes" theories or think men are systematically victimized by society (we aren't) and want to point out this as an example. I don't know if you believe in either of those things or if you have a different explanation? Linking to DC implies an agenda but based on the principle of charity I will assume you just weren't thinking about the implications when you posted this.
There are several reasons prostate cancer doesn't get the same attention as breast cancer.
1. Fewer high-profile people organizing around it and starting foundations to study it. You may wish the world worked on a slightly more utilitarian scale where we distributed medical research resources fairly according to need and impact. The reality is the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
2. Prostate cancer isn't nearly as squeaky of a wheel:
a) men who get it usually get it later in life compared to women who get breast cancer. Dying at 45 of cancer is a tragedy. Dying at 75 of cancer is a day that ends in Y.
b) most forms of prostate cancer are slower-growing and less metastatic; as a result even men who get it often choose not to get treatment and end up dying of heart failure or other ailments before the prostate cancer has any negative effects. In the US, the 5-year survival rate for prostate cancer diagnosis is 99%.
I'm glad research is being done on prostate cancer and breast cancer at the same time; I don't see any need for an "equal" funding principle. If such rules did exist it would have to be based on # of affected people and life-expectancy. Under such a system prostate cancer would probably rank as over-funded right now.
For the latter, I'd say that this topic is inherently sex-specific and thus in a way, has to be sexist. Obviously we wouldn't be talking about prostate cancer if it was leukemia, but it is not. Discussing the survival rates across genders is a legitimate topic and it might turn out that men at more danger - apart from prostate cancer, keep in mind that men commit much more suicides [1], usually take much riskier jobs and in some countries are forced to participate in the army. As a source, I would recommend The Red Pill movie by Cassie Jaye - a woman who called herself feminist until she actually researched what masculism is about.
Also, it doesn't have to be a "battle of the sexes" as you put it. Working on male health does not mean stopping research on female health - it's just that prostate cancer definitely isn't getting enough exposure. It would be great if we learned to acknowledge that we can fight for our gender's rights without shouting how the other one oppresses us.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide
No, because both men and women can die from leukemia.