>>If cancer afflicted approximately one in hundred of the population in the Victorian era, and now afflicts one in three (and rising), that's a pretty fair pre-suppositional question, given animal based cancer research has done sweet FA to allieviate this.<<

I am a cancer researcher so what I am about to say is based on consensus, peer reviewed research NOT opinion.

Cancer is a disease of aging. The simple fact is that more people are surviving to get cancer thanks to modern medicine (tested on animals for the most part). Also the sudden upsurge in carcinogenic chemicals which are in our foodchain, plus increased smoking and overeating by people who are reluctant to see a doctor at the first warning signs had increased DNA damage.
When the DNA is damaged it DOES NOT automatically cause cancer, usually a transformed cell dies, but somtimes it aquires a mutation which makes it resistant to the proscess of programmed cell death (apoptosis). Usually these cells are destroyed by the body, but somtimes they survive to divide, effectivly you have a set of immortal cells (as long as you are alive at least). These immortal cells can then pick up other mutations, and if they get one which causes out of control cell division then that is cancer.
If the body is good at getting rid of mutated cells then you are less likely to get cancer, but as you age the mechanisms wear out. Also there are thousands of different combinations of mutations so there is no way to say (for example) "ah ha, this is what causes breast cancer".
If you don't like animal testing don't take any medicines, not even the Chinese ones, they have ALL been tested on animals. Animal testing is, unfortunatly, still a nesscessarry evil, unless we have an endless supply of willing voulenteers to test if this new drug is horribly toxic or not. I think you'll find there will be very few of them, we are a selfish species.