There is a degree of spin involved in the suggestion that 185,000 women could die by 2030 unless gaps in breast cancer research are addressed.

The claim seems to be based on the total estimate of likely deaths from the disease in the UK, and the number who could be saved if the disease were cured tomorrow.

The disease will not be cured tomorrow and, even if it were, treatment would not necessarily reach all those who could benefit from it. The description of "gaps" is also misleading - many of those identified are already the subject of intense research and spending.

In some cases, notably the need to carry out biopsies of cancers after they have begun to spread, the Breast Cancer Campaign appears to be pushing for genuine gaps to be addressed. However, there is huge duplication of effort in other areas as scientific teams around the world focus on similar research goals.

Breast cancer is a well-funded and competitive research field, and rightly so for a disease which is still deadly within five years for 15% of those diagnosed, and which remains the second biggest cause of cancer deaths among women.

But in areas such as the call for more funding to educate the public on how to avoid cancer through lifestyle changes, today's report is suggesting more money be poured into an existing area of activity, and one where evidence of the likely impact is limited.

Some will argue that any money spent to tackle this potentially fatal illness is justified, and the popular appeal of fundraising for breast cancer research is self-evident. But the law of diminishing returns affects such decisions and it is worth asking whether there is a case for prioritising other medical research.

The allocation of research funding at times appears far from logical. The five-year survival rates for bladder, liver and stomach cancer are all now much poorer than that for breast cancer. Other "unfashionable" conditions such as epilepsy, cause significant numbers of deaths a year, but receive far less research attention.

Issues unconnected with the objective significance of a condition can also influence funding - such as when Kate Middleton sufferred from sever morning sickness during pregnancy.

An influx of cash into the closer study of relatively neglected conditions can offer the hope of bigger, faster improvements than ever more money being channelled into a few high profile causes.

One of the report's authors Professor Alastair Thompson, from the University of Dundee, claims the UK lags behind other Western counties in terms of treatment, but this seems to be a separate issue.

Until there is a cure or something like one for breast cancer, it is of course vital that the best scientific minds are well-funded to research prevention, treatment and cure.

With limited research money available, it is not unreasonable to ask whether there are better and more effective ways of spending it, and for detailed explanations of how many people might benefit, and how soon.