Slashdot Mirror


Nobel Prize Awarded for Stomach Ulcer Discovery

gollum123 writes to tell us the BBC is reporting that the Nobel prize for medicine has been awarded to two Australian scientists for their work with ulcers. Their research has shown that the majority of ulcers are caused by bacteria and can be cured with a short-term course of drugs and antibiotics. From the article: "Dr Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastic inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium. The Nobel citation praises the doctors for their tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas."

24 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. 1982! by Stile+65 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Nobel Prize committee is almost as slow as Slashdot. The actual discovery, per TFA, was made in 1982.

    --
    I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    1. Re:1982! by Sad+Loser · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is cool becasue Barry Marshall was a junior doctor who saw something he couldn't explain and decided to investigate and test it, in classic geeky fashion. He even tested the theory by drinking H.Pylori and got the mother of all stomach aches afterwards.
      This proves that it is still possible to do great medical research in the mould (sorry) of Fleming and Penicillin, and you don't need a $100m research budget.

      He suffered a lot of problems getting the medical establishment to believe him, and it took at least 20 years, but once it did, the Nobel was bound to happen sooner or later.

      Good on you Bazza

      --
      Humorous signatures are over-rated.
    2. Re:1982! by slavemowgli · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't be silly. The Nobel prize is pretty much the highest award you can receive in the fields where it is awarded - so it's certainly understandable that the committee wants to make sure that those who receive the prize really *have* made a ground-breaking discovery that deserves the prize. And waiting for some time to see what influence a discovery will have is pretty much the only way to find out.

      That being said, yes, the discovery was made in 1982, but it wasn't even *confirmed* until 1987, so it's not just the Nobel prize committee, either.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    3. Re:1982! by mrogers · · Score: 5, Funny

      Stop bellyaching. It's a long journey from the first the germ of an idea to publishing a tract on the subject, digesting the feedback, ruminating on the implications, eliminating any remaining doubts and finally putting your theory to the acid test. Not everyone has the stomach for it.

    4. Re:1982! by Phreakiture · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Nobel Prize committee is almost as slow as Slashdot. The actual discovery, per TFA, was made in 1982.

      Similar to what I was going to post. I have known this since 1996 or so, when I heard a presentation by a Dr. Barach. He was saying that the cure for ulcers is tetracycline (antibiotic) and bismuth. In short, antibiotics with a shot of Pepto-Bismol should do it.

      The trouble with Dr. Barach knowing this is that, being a veterinarian, he was forbidden to use this knowledge on people. We have this taboo, which is sometimes codified into law (as it was where he practiced) that one person cannot be licenced as both a DVM and an MD.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    5. Re:1982! by VagaStorm · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know, if it takes 20 years to get the nobel and they dont give it post mortem.... well.... this might qualify you for a darwin rather than a nobel :p

    6. Re:1982! by dirtfox · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Perhaps another reason for delay in acceptance of these findings, was that up until the early 90's the * worlds biggest selling drug * was one that inhibits stomach acid production and under patent - unlike cheap as beans & generic broad spectrum antibiotics.

      Rather chilling when you consider one of the body's mechanisms of protection against bacteria is stomach acidity. Hence why European versions of this drug include the ancient antibiotic bismuth (also found in a famous pink stomach medicine)

      So treating a symptom and possibly making it worse in the long run; good business plan - almost as graceful as nicotine enlarging airways and easing breathing: early adverts recommended cigarettes as a cure for bronchitis!

    7. Re:1982! by Wannabe+Code+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is cool becasue Barry Marshall was a junior doctor who saw something he couldn't explain and decided to investigate and test it, in classic geeky fashion.

      This is what religious fundamentalists/people who push intelligent design will never understand. From the article: The Nobel citation praises the doctors for their tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas. That's the beauty of true science, it's a quest for truth regardless of what was previously "known". If you discover something that conflicts with earlier thinking, not only are you recognized, but you're celebrated. This is because truth, not of centuries of tradition, is the motivating factor behind science.

      I mean, just think about what faith is... No matter how much evidence goes against what you believe, you will still believe it anyway. Simply because it was told to you by your parents and your local wizard. It must be pretty amazing that out of the hundreds of religions all over the face of the Earth you happened to be born into the one "right" religion. Science doesn't care where you come from, or who your parents are, it's all the same search for truth. Science is much more unifying than religion.

      --
      We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
  2. I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by SpacePunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He actually found a cause, and proposed a cure. Most modern barbers are happy to continually treat symptoms since that's what brings in the big bucks.

  3. Best way to find a cure... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Infect the researchers.

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
  4. Obvious by simong_oz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Possibly the best quote from a scientist ever (my emphasis):

    From another BBC article

    Mr Warren said he was a "little overcome" by the award.

    "It is nice to be officially recognised and it gives some sort of a stamp of approval, but we believed it within a few months because it was so bloody obvious," he told reporters.

    --
    "Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
  5. Re:Now that's my kinda medicine by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

    How stringent are the doctors in testing if you have an ulcer or not before handing out the drugs?

    They're usually not too bad on testing for the ulcer itself. Unfortuately, they are quite happy to hand out powerful drugs for anything that appears to be gastritis.

    The upshot is that the drugs they will give you (primarily antibiotics) are for short term use, and aren't that different from what they tend to give people "just in case". Though I have to wonder if some of the stomach damage isn't caused by reckless use of antibiotics. The human stomach is inteded to have a variety of bacteria to aid in digestion. Using antibiotics tends to nail ALL bacteria, including the stuff you want to keep.

    Yogurt with live cultures is a good way of replacing Acidophilus, but if you've recently had antibiotics, you might want to think about a bottle of bacterial supplements. These can be had in pill form, but you *must* keep it cold and pay attention to the expiration date.

  6. Re:Infected himself? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny
    One of the doctors is from my home town of Adelaide, so I suspect another motive for the self infection...

    Boredom?

  7. About time! by ashridah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    About time this happened.

    My mother was the unfortunate sufferer of a stomach ulcer for almost 30 years of her life.

    One day, her doctor finds out she has it (after all, who keeps trying to fix a 30 year old condition that hasn't killed you yet?), and gives her the newly recognised course of broad-spectrum anti-biotics & neutralisers (since the stomach is kinda hard to treat, acidic n all, tends to destroy the anti-biotics before they have an effect ;) ), and a month later, she's fine!

    It's scary how long it took for the standard opinion to get torn down, and how simple the final answer really was! In hindsight, the original theory sounds decidedly suspicious. Stress, indeed.

    ashridah

  8. Dr Marshall is my Hero by Herbst · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Dr Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastic inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium."

    Smart thinking. You either get a Nobel Prize or a Darwin Award. A win-win situation.

  9. Diagnosing "Conditions", not finding Causes by Wills · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Years before this discovery was made, stomach ulcers like so many other health problems always used to be labelled by the doctors as a "stress" or "lifestyle" related condition, without any proof that anything more definite than that was really directly responsible. Even to this day, it is amazing that medicine still has literally thousands of loosely-defined medical "conditions" and "syndromes" which have no known specific cause but which are nonetheless given proper names for doctors to use as convenient diagnostic labels. Doctors are still trained to diagnose these "conditions", rather than to think harder about possible underlying cause(s). The two scientists in this story were brave enough to challenge the conventional wisdom of their peers that stress and lifestyle factors cause stomach ulcers. It's interesting to wonder how many other "conditions" are actually caused by undetected bacteria or viruses which are waiting to be discovered by scientists prepared to challenge the prevailing dogma.

    1. Re:Diagnosing "Conditions", not finding Causes by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod parent up.

      This is a very insightful view of what is a real problem with the current practice of medicine . There are many 'syndromes' that are considered to be triggered by lifestyle when actually there are deeper root causes. All too much of medicine is based on statistical studies that show correlations - and correlations do not in any way provide causality.

      The real breakthrough in the discovery of a bacterial cause of ulcers is the spotlight it places on the worth of really finding the root cause of a problem rather than just hand waving and correlative studies. Hopefully the medical profession and medical research takes this lesson seriously because it provides a path to real progress in treatment of many debilitating serious chronic diseases. We spend too much time treating symptoms rather than auses and it drives the cost of medical care sky high.

  10. I thought... by AgentPhunk · · Score: 5, Funny

    He infected /himself/? I thought that was what TA's and Post-grads were for.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Re:Ouch by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 5, Interesting
    That is completely wrong. Perhaps you are thinking of the Fields Medal in mathematics? That is sometimes described as the 'mathematics equivalent of the Nobel prize', but the selection criteria is quite different; it recognizes both existsing work and future potential, and you have to be aged 40 or under to receive it.

    The Nobel prize, on the other hand, is awarded purely for groundbreaking research, usually on the basis of a single seminal piece of research but sometimes something more like a 'lifetime acheivement' award. In almost all cases, it is awarded long after the original research, when the impact can be properly judged in the historical context. For many Nobel lauriates, the work they received the prize for was an exception in an otherwise ordinary career. And in some cases, (the physics prize for the 3K microwave cosmic background comes to mind) the recipents were not actually scientists, but just stumbled upon the discovery by accident.

  13. Re:Nobel awarded on merit of utility or tenacity?? by chinodelosmuertos · · Score: 5, Informative
    Hmm. You sorta opened a can of worms here. A couple of issues here.

    First: Does H. pylori eradication lead to increased incidence of Barrett's esophagitis and esophageal cancer? Maybe. The jury is still out. The Japanese have just published a pretty comprehensive review (Japanese Journal of Clinical Medicine. 63(8):1383-6, 2005 Aug)on the subject. The increase in one may be more common with the eradication of the other. Fine. Are they casually related? That's a more complex question that I think the research is sorta investigating. I dont think Scientific American really has the answer.

    But that's not the major issue. Stomach ulcer is a condition that PRIOR to the triple treatment (bismuth + antibiotics + acid inhibitors) would take months to years to heal. Some anecdotal stories as long as 6 years. More. Sometimes never. Leading to serious, serious complications that have even worse prognoses. You see what I'm getting at here. Quality of life years lost are huge, affecting huge chunks of the population. Known risk of causing stomach cancer, perforation of your guts (think your guts spilling into your abdominal cavity) and iron deficiency due to chronic bleeding just for a start. Now we're saying... OK. It MAY result in reflux, eosophageal cancer and Barrett's (cells in your eosophagus changing morphology).

    Hardly the "eliminating H. pylori is worse than the symptoms created by too much of it." If anything, what this might suggest is that there might be some unwanted complications to altering the internal milieu of the stomach, and they should be addressed. Full stop. Sky's not falling yet, pal.

  14. Faith vs. Dogma by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, just think about what faith is... No matter how much evidence goes against what you believe, you will still believe it anyway.

    Faith is an essential means to remain optimistic in an uncertain world. Faith is belief in the face of doubt / the absurd. Faith is arguably very important to scientific discovery, lest one doubt their hypotheses.

    On the other hand, blind believe in the face of evidence strikes me more as dogmatism. And there certainly has been a lot of that in the history of science.

    --
    -Stu
    1. Re:Faith vs. Dogma by @madeus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Faith is an essential means to remain optimistic in an uncertain world. Faith is belief in the face of doubt / the absurd. Faith is arguably very important to scientific discovery, lest one doubt their hypotheses.

      Faith however, is not essential and I would argue it's not particularly desirable. I prefer to practice realism (to the best of my ability) than delude myself with a reality distortion field built on expectations that are by definition unrealistic and founded on false premises.

      You can still be a kind, generous, altruistic and forgiving person and not have faith, but because you believe it's an appropriate way to behave and has net benefits (in that it can be beneficial to you, and to society as a whole because it encourages reciprocal behaviour, as indeed it does).

      Those pushing religion tend not to be keen on that idea though, they prefer to push the notion that you need to latch on to a specific 'faith' system to support you lest you fall of the wagon. I believe that approach is misguided and potentially dangerous.

      'Faith' as a solution is at best a kludge and at worst a red herring, that can lead down a dark path with disastrous repercussions on a global scale. Addressing root causes such as inequality, injustice, and persecution are more effective approaches at dealing with the things that drive people to 'faith' based groups in the first place.

      I do not believe the world can ever be 'a perfect place' - history and logical deduction seem to suggests otherwise, as any social environment that relies on co-operation also leaves open the opportunity for another to profit by shafting others in the group, meaning there will always be an incentive not to co-operate (The Scorpion and the Frog) - and that's to say nothing of human nature, chemical imbalances and behaviour in exception circumstances.

      There is clearly room for significant improvement in the way we interact with each other, particularly on a global scale however I do not believe faith based systems are an effective means of progression to that point. The acceptance of an unfavourable circumstance and a logical extrapolation of the most effective way to resolve an issue are more helpful than any system based on sheer optimism.

      With specific regard to:

      Faith is arguably very important to scientific discovery, lest one doubt their hypotheses

      I think if you don't have any doubt about your hypotheses there is something seriously wrong with your approach. Even if your right you ought to have doubts about it and set out to prove yourself wrong until you are certain you are right, that's how hypotheses progress to being regarded as 'proven'.

  15. mitochondria by smazzle · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's similar to Lynn Margulis' discovery that the mitochondria were originally their own organism and have since been integrated into our cells. She first made that claim in the 1980's, and only now has it started to become accepted dogma. It takes time to change minds, and she's still working on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis