I think in retrospect, we can consider the Manhattan Project another moonshot, at least purely on a technical level, and that only took three years. The thing about moonshots is that you can't just declare a moonshot by fiat and expect anything to happen. The state of science and technology needs to have reached a point where a significant breakthrough is imminent, given sufficient investment. This is where atomic science was in 1942 and rocketry was in 1960.
Which is why the historic examples of moonshots didn't actually arise from government fiat, but from scientists. The Manhattan Project famously started from a letter, signed by multiple prominent physicists including Einstein, warning the US government that the invention of an atomic bomb was imminent enough that they feared Germany would accomplish it first. The moon landing was a little more complicated, but for the entire 20th century, rocket scientists understood it was possible to explore space and did everything they could to try and convince various governments to fund their research[1]; the imminent achievability of a moon landing by 1960 fueled fears in the US government that the Soviets might beat them there.
So who are the cancer researchers promising that any sort of "moonshot" breakthrough is imminent? Let me know if there is one, but the cancer moonshot idea seems to have originated in politics, and once politicians start promising "cancer moonshots"--even if no such thing is likely to be achievable--it's not likely cancer researchers are going to complain or refuse the new source of potential funding.
Unlike the government, Google at least has or had the potential to be the type of organization that actually listened to the relevant technical experts instead of being dictated by the whims of random executives receiving revelations from the Good Idea Fairy. But I agree with you that it doesn't seem like they've delivered.
Finally, I think even calling these projects "moonshots" sets them up for failure in a certain way. If you said "we can and will land on the Moon" in 1962, people will be impressed. If you say "we're going to achieve a 'cancer moonshot'", what does that mean? Does that mean you're going to cure cancer? No, because if you were going to cure cancer, you'd say "we can and will cure cancer". Except (as far as I know) that would be a lie, so instead they say "cancer moonshot", which doesn't mean anything. Any goal that's ambitious enough to be called a "moonshot" is a goal that you can just say out loud and it will impress people a lot more than calling it a "moonshot".
[1] Yes, this is my way of glossing over the V-2; I don't morally endorse Von Braun's work during the war and this is entirely beside the point I'm making here.
Which is why the historic examples of moonshots didn't actually arise from government fiat, but from scientists. The Manhattan Project famously started from a letter, signed by multiple prominent physicists including Einstein, warning the US government that the invention of an atomic bomb was imminent enough that they feared Germany would accomplish it first. The moon landing was a little more complicated, but for the entire 20th century, rocket scientists understood it was possible to explore space and did everything they could to try and convince various governments to fund their research[1]; the imminent achievability of a moon landing by 1960 fueled fears in the US government that the Soviets might beat them there.
So who are the cancer researchers promising that any sort of "moonshot" breakthrough is imminent? Let me know if there is one, but the cancer moonshot idea seems to have originated in politics, and once politicians start promising "cancer moonshots"--even if no such thing is likely to be achievable--it's not likely cancer researchers are going to complain or refuse the new source of potential funding.
Unlike the government, Google at least has or had the potential to be the type of organization that actually listened to the relevant technical experts instead of being dictated by the whims of random executives receiving revelations from the Good Idea Fairy. But I agree with you that it doesn't seem like they've delivered.
Finally, I think even calling these projects "moonshots" sets them up for failure in a certain way. If you said "we can and will land on the Moon" in 1962, people will be impressed. If you say "we're going to achieve a 'cancer moonshot'", what does that mean? Does that mean you're going to cure cancer? No, because if you were going to cure cancer, you'd say "we can and will cure cancer". Except (as far as I know) that would be a lie, so instead they say "cancer moonshot", which doesn't mean anything. Any goal that's ambitious enough to be called a "moonshot" is a goal that you can just say out loud and it will impress people a lot more than calling it a "moonshot".
[1] Yes, this is my way of glossing over the V-2; I don't morally endorse Von Braun's work during the war and this is entirely beside the point I'm making here.