spankratchet

Oh, definitely. The next big thing in cancer treatment is just as likely to come out from somebody working on fish biology as anywhere else. Just look at the CRISPR gene-editing technique, which could be really interesting in a lot of areas of medicine, which came out of research on bacteria.

Having said that, the first conclusive evidence that gene damage causes cancer came from a cancer research institute.

I guess my view is that it's good to focus on things, but not at the expense of letting people work on stuff that is apparently of little use.

Why do you think it's not? To pick on just one area of interest in cancer research, the Wnt signalling pathway is involved in cancer, embryonic development and, probably, male pattern balding. Yes, some researchers work on it a a very 'pure science' way. But to turn research into effective treatments of cancer, you almost always have to have a 'cancer research'-led approach to work you're doing.

Edit: Also, it's the fox, not the wolf.

Have you seen many Nikon D600s with sensor dust/oil problems? Do you think those problems are unusually common? The amount of internet complaining going on put me off buying a D600, but I can't tell if it's a vocal minority blowing up a tiny problem or a widespread issue.