What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
48 Comments
- Julolidine, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6Although these are nice papers, there are things to be critical about.
Many cancerous mutations involve epigenetic changes rather than genetic changes - this means "knockdown" via RNAi will never find these genes. - LlamaKing, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5Cheers to new cancer research. God I hope this gets solved in my lifetime.
- esquimaux, on 02/07/2008, -2/+7...Everything that used to be a sin is now a disease...bill maher
- JoeVet, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3That's a valid point but the goal of science is not only to find a cure but to understand the process. So man will continue to seek enlightenment through research. This will lead to longer life spans and eventually man will die of starvation and disease spread by over crowding. Nature will adjust the population after the point when the population is unsupportable. It will be ugly but our only alternative is a draconian population control measure like the have in China.
- LlamaKing, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3Hopefully this will lead to new research, and eventually solving cancer.
- duddles, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Geez, I just made a baking soda volcano. What a show-off.
- Coinspinner, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Weed cures cancer. Proved yet again.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abst ... - duddles, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2But don't the epigenetic changes ultimately act by changing gene expression? If an epigenetic change upregulates an oncogene, then RNAi of that oncogene would show an effect, no?
- inactive, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Target where the growth occurs, with extensive screening.
- tbunreal, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Thats what im thinking, what if by some weird chance diseases evolved to keep the population steady? I dont know just a thought.
- inactive, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2You want to reintroduce polio and other practically eradicated diseases as well? That would keep the population down. Perhaps the life that's saved turns out to be your own. Perhaps it's the life of the person who discovers how to feed >6 billion people by making a tremendous advance in agriculture. I realize you brought this up only as a point of discussion, and it's a good one, but I think cancer funding should be increased and continued until a cure is found. It's a terrible, evil disease and no one deserves to have it.
- iNunchuk, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2My question is, even if they were to make 'genetic medicine' how would they ensure its delivery to every cell in the body? Most medicines can't even target at that efficiency.
- shogun042, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2this is my science fair project.
look at it this way - cancer cells are immortal because of one simple fact, they can maintain the ends of their DNA. a normal cell has its telomeres eroded away after every cell division, so after a certain number of cell divisions the cell stops dividing and dies (cell apoptosis or programmed cell death). the function of these telomeres is similar to the plastic on a shoe string, it keeps the DNA together and stops it from unraveling. the problem with cancer cells that keeps them immortal is the maintenance of these telomeres, and 80-90% of cancer cells do this through the enzyme telomerase (hTERT).
telomerase maintains the telomeres and thus gives the cancer cell immortality. developing various ways to block the production of telomerase is one way of blocking the immortality of cancer cells and this can be achieved through utilizing siRNA (small interfering RNA).
i'm first doing comparison tests in cell lines to see which siRNA work best and then (hopefully) getting approval next year to try it on mice. - inactive, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2What ever happened to that Dichloroacetic acid (DCA) research?
- punchingjudy, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Damnation. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81683-9
- nullcodes, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2This business of first line and second line therapy has to end. There should be a greater push for combination therapy only.
To cure malignant cancer (or even stuff like HIV), the best thing to do is to simultaneously target multiple (at least 3 or 4) mechanisms .. or to be more specific you have to ensure that the cancer needs an impossibly high number of simultaneous and specific mutations for it to avoid being killed (so in theory this could mean one or two mechanisms only -- but practically never). Otherwise, you will have sequential mutations for each drug and then the cancer is mutated beyond therapy. - Shenaniganz08, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2wow thats an over simplification of a complex concept -__-
- madsci, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2there are several ways. some characteristics of tumor cells make them unique from normal cells. and researchers try to take advantage of these characteristics to develop smart drugs (antigen-targeting) for delivery to the tumor.
- inactive, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3you have to shake it to death
- Julolidine, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3Cancer has been cured in mice at least 100 times. Surprisingly enough, Humans are different than mice.
- punchingjudy, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Mars colonization! Yay!
- Pignanelli, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Cancer represents a derangement of cell functioning not unlike the derangement of a computer caused by various problems, be they viruses, hardware errors, mechanical or electrical issues, etc. To say you can block the division of these deranged cells is like saying you can fix my mis-functioning computer by throwing it off of a cliff. Effective, perhaps, but undesirable nonetheless.
- punchingjudy, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Recommended reading: Hallmarks of Cancer (research paper written by MIT oncology-researcher, Weinberg). One of my favorite papers evar.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR ... - iamdegenatron, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2This is why stem cells are so important. You could theoretically identify the gene for this genetic type of cancer (or any other genetic condition), take some stem cells from the affected, take out the virulent genes, replace the stem cells back into the patient and watch them multiply and spread cells without the virulent gene, all without the fear of rejection by the body. Though we are a bit far from reaching this capability just yet!
- inactive, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1What does that make you?
- diggcensors, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2By reprogramming nanites from captured replicator technology... Im sure Rodney can whip up a cure in about 5 minutes when facing certain demise.
- HPMNick, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Well, I do agree that cancer is a horrible disease to get. I am not taking a "pro-cancer" stance.
I'm just brining up the point that overpopulation could be worse. What happens when the number of people in the world become extremely high, and our resources start to run out? Now this may not ever happen, but it certainly could.
What would happen if tomorrow we ran out of just one resource.. like oil? What would happen? Society may collapse upon itself. Wars would break out to secure the remaining resources. It would be a free for all. All order would break down and chaos could ensue.
Death plays a certain function in the ecological system. I'm sure we have a while to go before such a situation is even possible... Yet, population levels are an important issue. If we can cure the number 1 & 2 killers of death in the world ( cancer and heart disease ), people would live much much longer...
If we could make it so that people could live indefinitely, would we want to do that? Probably not, that would cause some obvious problems. Where do we draw the line? An average life span of 100 years? 150? 200?
In 50-100 years, this may come to be a larger issue... I just thought I'd throw it out there. - madsci, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2it has been debunked
- badave, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2More research happened to it. See, the nature of research is that it takes a really long time to do.
- shadowspawn, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2cancer is the beginning of the next stage of human evolution.
- marky125, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2Don't feed the trolls!
- HPMNick, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Entirely possible... but it could easily go the other way as well, considering our track record for controlling such diseases..
- HPMNick, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Well, I'd actually opt for the draconian measures (or at least some measures of our own).
I'd rather see a world population of 1 billion living very well then see a world of 30 billion living in a sh*thole.
But you are right about the process being one of understanding... The only way we will continue to grow is with more information. - HPMNick, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Sure, but how will the Martians feel about this?
- mydave, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1I have question, if they were to make 'genetic medicine' how would they ensure its delivery to every cell in the body?
http://www.yara-online.org/
http://www.ocflex.com/
http://www.trgovinca.org - inactive, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2Oh comeon... EVERYONE knows its cigarettes. They cause cells to divide like mad. I read that somewhere. Yet... no one seems to be able to explain why this is.
- HPMNick, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2Nice. Just one question:
What happens when we modern medicine doubles the life expectancy and the world population is > 6 billion people? Its an odd concept, but at what point does it make more sense to let people die instead of continually prolonging life?
I'm not trying to say we are at that point yet (nor am I saying we have not yet passed that point either), but I think its worth discussing - gumby013, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2oh....that's why I have cancer. good to know.
- mysedai, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2Eh, a few people beat me to it.
- mysedai, on 02/07/2008, -4/+4First comment that doesn't involve douchebaggery...
I'm always happy to read articles that involve steps toward getting rid of caner. Guys who can do stuff like that are my heroes. - LlamaKing, on 02/07/2008, -4/+4-_-
- cheesehead, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2 Unfortunately research is so politicized by drug companies as to be meaningless. The war on Cancer is as bogus as the war on terrorism. But like all other wars it is extremely profitable for a few. Suck it up doucebags!
- cannonball, on 02/07/2008, -4/+3First digg down...
- MikeyMoose, on 01/30/2009, -3/+2Yabbada yabbada WTF? Oh sure, I understood that...
- appleseed1234, on 02/07/2008, -3/+2Hookers suck...
- FolleFille, on 02/07/2008, -3/+2YOU ARE SO COOL!
- inactive, on 02/07/2008, -4/+2Go back to Youtube, retard.
- TwoWayMonologue, on 02/07/2008, -21/+1First comment bitches...
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is