Some populations are more at risk than others. Alaska Natives have the highest documented colorectal cancer mortality in the world, but Siegel said that, because the total number of Alaska Natives is so small, it’s hard to get funding to study why.

I don’t doubt that it is difficult to get funding (especially now), but seems kind of dumb.

If anything such a small population in a relatively isolated environment seems like it would allow researchers to better control variability. Unless it’s strictly a genetic risk factor, it would seem that any significant environmental risk factors they find could then just be helpful when determining what risk factors to consider in bigger heterogenous populations, right?