The Status of Cancer Research

Oldtree

[MOD]This thread is a spin-off from a discussion in the S&EI forum on nuclear power.[/MOD]

djpbarry wrote: »

And why hasn't somebody cured cancer by now?

they are working on it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01g7lhb

At the end of the programme by a scientist who is getting to grips with the genetics of cancer, (already genetic drugs out there curing potentially 50% of those with one particular skin cancer), hopes to have nearly all cancers genetically typed and serious headway made to curing within 10 years.

djpbarry

Oldtree wrote: »

they are working on it...

Humans have been "working" on cancer since ancient times - it was well documented by Hippocrates, for example. However, 2,400-odd years later, despite the best of efforts, cancer still affects about one third of the Earth's population and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The idea that we are within a decade of making "serious headway" toward curing "most" cancers is pure fantasy - our understanding of cell biology is nowhere near that advanced.

The idea that throwing enough research at a problem will necessarily solve it within a certain time frame is clearly complete nonsense, hence when it comes to thorium and breeder reactors, I shan't be holding my breath.

Oldtree

djpbarry wrote: »

Humans have been "working" on cancer since ancient times - it was well documented by Hippocrates, for example. However, 2,400-odd years later, despite the best of efforts, cancer still affects about one third of the Earth's population and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The idea that we are within a decade of making "serious headway" toward curing "most" cancers is pure fantasy - our understanding of cell biology is nowhere near that advanced.

The idea that throwing enough research at a problem will necessarily solve it within a certain time frame is clearly complete nonsense, hence when it comes to thorium and breeder reactors, I shan't be holding my breath.

Yes it may still affect a lot of people but you quickly dismiss the advances made in Hormone therapy, Radiation, Chemotherapy, Immunotherapy and Targeted therapy over the last recent past that were not available to Hippocrates, not to mention genetic advances in both understanding and techniques. Given those advances it is a simple matter for a scientist working in that specific field to extrapolate from that where we can be in 10 years time.

They have already solved dealing with some cancers so you should not dismiss their efforts so easily:

In the past it has typically taken anything from 15 years to 30 years from the first biological discovery until a new cancer drug becomes widely available to patients. With new technology and genetic insights into cancer, we can now get drugs to cancer patients much faster. For example, it was only 11 years between the initial discovery of the braf oncogene to the approval of vemurafenib.

http://horizon.icr.ac.uk/drug_development.html

And it appears that you also easily dismiss their efforts and results to come.

I hope you dont hold your breath as such over confidence will lead to you turning a funny shade of blue.

GarIT

You can't predict when you will discover things. Columbus never said "I'll find a new country within 10 years", Bell never said "I'll invent a communications device in 10 years". If any scientist said something like that I would clearly question their work, an intelligent person wouldn't try to predict when they will find something.

If it was a case of finishing experiments or perfecting a drug that's acceptable because you already have the ground work and the idea done. When its something you have never seen before a prediction is impossible.

Oldtree

GarIT wrote: »

You can't predict when you will discover things. Columbus never said "I'll find a new country within 10 years", Bell never said "I'll invent a communications device in 10 years". If any scientist said something like that I would clearly question their work, an intelligent person wouldn't try to predict when they will find something.

If it was a case of finishing experiments or perfecting a drug that's acceptable because you already have the ground work and the idea done. When its something you have never seen before a prediction is impossible.

perhaps it would be best if you watched the programme. The context is important.

The scientist has already had success and with regard to other genetic cancer so it is just a matter of time to map others to find similar results to the current success. So there is just a process to go through, no new discoverys to be made as such, the discoverys have already been made, Nonetheless these discoverys point the way for future discoverys.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01g7lhb

djpbarry

Oldtree wrote: »

...you quickly dismiss the advances...

No I don’t. I’m saying that predicting scientific discovery is impossible.

Oldtree wrote: »

Given those advances it is a simple matter for a scientist working in that specific field to extrapolate from that where we can be in 10 years time.

No it isn’t, because that implies that a scientist (or team of scientists) can predict when something is going to be discovered – that’s ridiculous.

Oldtree wrote: »

They have already solved dealing with some cancers...

That implies that certain cancers have been eradicated, which is nonsense.

Oldtree wrote: »

perhaps it would be best if you watched the programme. The context is important.

The scientist has already had success and with regard to other genetic cancer so it is just a matter of time to map others to find similar results to the current success. So there is just a process to go through, no new discoverys to be made as such, the discoverys have already been made...

Suffice to say that is complete bull****. There are no new discoveries to be made in the field of cell biology? We know everything there is to know? If that’s the kind of nonsense that’s peddled in that documentary then I think I’ll steer clear, thanks very much. New discoveries are being made all the time!

http://www.nature.com/ncb/index.html
http://www.cell.com

Oldtree

djpbarry wrote: »

No I don’t. I’m saying that predicting scientific discovery is impossible.

the point is that they have a working discovery and the same sort of process can be applied to other genetic cancers, not quite sure if you read my post correctly

djpbarry wrote: »

No it isn’t, because that implies that a scientist (or team of scientists) can predict when something is going to be discovered – that’s ridiculous.

read my posts please, again if the discovery has been already made then similar paths can be taken with other genetic cancers.

djpbarry wrote: »

That implies that certain cancers have been eradicated, which is nonsense.

no, again read my posts, the implications are for an advance in understanding and with patients achieving remission

Equally how can you say we know all we need to and there are no new discoverys to be made, do you live in a vaccum?

Have you watched the programme?

djpbarry

Moved from S&EI.

djpbarry

Oldtree wrote: »

the point is that they have a working discovery and the same sort of process can be applied to other genetic cancers...

And my point is that this a gross over-simplification of cancer research. And what do you mean by “genetic cancers” anyway?

Oldtree wrote: »

Equally how can you say we know all we need to...

I never said any such thing. Precisely the opposite, in fact.

Oldtree

Please watch the program and you will get a better idea of what I am talking about.

Jimoslimos

I cringe a little inside when I hear people on tv come out with statements like "Lets beat/cure all 200 forms of cancer". I also wonder when the public backlash is going to come against those charities which haven't managed to 'cure cancer' yet despite billions of pounds pumped into them.

Fact is, as our life expectancies increase something eventually has to kill us. We are able to cure/avoid/immunise against many of the pathogens that would previously done us in so all that are left are the non-communicable diseases, especially the big two, cardiovascular disease and cancer. Now you can take as many precautions against these insofar as possible, healthy eating, non-smoking, etc but chances are you'll succumb to one of them in the end.

Without the ability for DNA to alter, life as we know it would't exist. An unfortunate side-effect/outcome of our continuing evolution is cancer. A bit simplistic I know.

Oldtree wrote: »

Yes it may still affect a lot of people but you quickly dismiss the advances made in Hormone therapy, Radiation, Chemotherapy, Immunotherapy and Targeted therapy over the last recent past that were not available to Hippocrates

A lot of those are the proverbial cannon to kill a fly approach, and nowhere near as specific as you might think - even immunotherapy. No-ones dismissing anything, even further improvements but it's pie in the sky thinking to suggest cancer will ever be 'cured'.

djpbarry

Oldtree wrote: »

Please watch the program and you will get a better idea of what I am talking about.

You can't expect someone to watch an hour-long documentary in order to partake in a discussion.

steddyeddy

Well imho hormone therapy, immunotherapy and radiotherapy are very blunt tools and I dont think that the major advances in oncology will be found there. Genetic or epigenetic research will imho produce the major breakthroughs.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well imho hormone therapy, immunotherapy and radiotherapy are very blunt tools

But getting better , wider ranges and more precise movement of radio sources means the does to healthy tissue can be reduced.

and I dont think that the major advances in oncology will be found there. Genetic or epigenetic research will imho produce the major breakthroughs.

we are getting to a stage where full genome decoding would probably a very cost effective way to screen people who have a disposition to certain types of cancer and also do large scale research

the costs in the near future would be similar to projects like the Port Tunnel and would have major health benefits for other diseases too.

daithioc

Hey, just wondering if somebody could give me an idea here.

If one wished to pursue a career in cancer research, what would be the best direction to take degree-wise?

Cheers

djpbarry

daithioc wrote: »

If one wished to pursue a career in cancer research, what would be the best direction to take degree-wise?

Biochemistry and/or molecular biology are the main stalwarts. But, biophysics is a growing field - there is a huge demand for physicists, mathematicians and engineers in the life sciences in general.

daithioc

djpbarry wrote: »

Biochemistry and/or molecular biology are the main stalwarts. But, biophysics is a growing field - there is a huge demand for physicists, mathematicians and engineers in the life sciences in general.

Would Genetics be any good?

djpbarry

daithioc wrote: »

Would Genetics be any good?

It depends: molecular structure and function of genes, yes, patterns of inheritance, no. Cancer research is rooted in cell biology, but that spans a whole range of different topics. Have a browse through the different labs here to get an idea of what's involved:

http://www.london-research-institute.org.uk

Kevster

Urrrggghh...that dreaded 'cure' word. I've just completed my PhD in breast cancer and am now 'postdoccing' in the same area. The word 'cure' is entirely misleading, I feel, and gives people much false hope. I feel that words and terms such as 'control', 'early detection', 'monitoring', et cetera are more constructive and helpful for the public.

There is no cure like there is for other illnesses. Even if one type of cancer becomes manageable, there will be other types of that same cancer left, not to mention all of the other dozens of cancers too.

take care
Kevin