Slashdot Mirror
Cancer Resistant Mouse Provides Possible Cure
Evoluder writes to tell us that scientists at Wake Forest University have found a "cancer resistant mouse" and bred it to make a small army of cancer resistant mice. When transplanting blood from one of these mice to a normal non-resistant mouse they are able to provide "lifetime cancer protection". From the article: "The cancer-resistant mice all stem from a single mouse discovered in 1999. "The cancer resistance trait so far has been passed to more than 2,000 descendants in 14 generations," said Cui, associate professor of pathology. It also has been bred into three additional mouse strains. About 40 percent of each generation inherits the protection from cancer."
but mortally susceptible to the common cold.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
...welcome our cancer resistant mice overlords
will skip the line you expected here and get right to the point: INVINCIBLE MICE ARMY?!?
Cancer Mouse... duh duh dah!
Will this cure cancer in rats? Because, EVERYTHING causes cancer in rats!
I know humans have several blood types and generally you have to follow rules as to which blood type you can give to another blood type person. ("O" type can donate to "B" type person, but not visa-versa)
Do mice have this issue? Or is this irrelevant because we are talking about white blood cells and not whole blood
I know, I know...wikipedia is my friend...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type
I'll take a carton of cigarettes and a shot of mouse blood.
I believe the general term is "scientific method"
scientists should know all the risks involved with creating such a possible genetic enhancement.
Why that's positively unscientific!
There's hundred of guys on the internet that will now never get cancer of the ass. So I'm told...
The Brain: I told you, Pinky! My genetic manipulation machine WORKED!
Pinky: Yes, Brain, but I'm tired of the needles... zort! poit!
Er, gives us a soul? I wasn't aware that the 'soul' was part of our DNA sequence, care to enlighten us heathen atheists as to what scientiffic observations led you in this direction? Also, if my soul is damaged, can I get a transplant donor soul?
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
Excellent question. I'd also inquire about its compatibility with Linux.
Check out the cave on the east side of lake Hylia. Strange and wonderful things live in it.
Someone told me that if humans were meant to live forever, then God would have made us immune to cancer.
How does God know about cancer? He doesn't even smoke or play in asbestos!
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
See PNAS, vol. 103, no 20, p7753-7758. VERY interesting work.
Cool, now all we have to do is train these mice to go in and shut down the main reactor and we will all be saved, with no bad side effects or sacrificial Vulcans!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
It's even worse. Apparantly the cancer resistant gene was found on the 3rd button. Mac users are hosed.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
How good is this really?
(Assuming this is true, it is a wonderful step.)
So the mouse is a cylon?
I mean, a'doy. Dr Baltar already figured this out. It cured President Rosylin's cancer, after all.
Next stage is to dress up a mouse in a really sexy outfit and post her pics to slashdot...
Thats a brilliant idea.
Why dont you email them and suggest it?
Reading between the lines of your analysis, I think youre saying there could be a real future application for it.
Like I dunno...curing cancer maybe?
The media is quick to call things like this a cure. The fact remains that, with some exceptions, men are not mice. Back in the late 90s, angiogenesis inhibitors (a class of drugs that inhibit the growth of new blood vessels, needed by tumors to provide nourishment as they grow) were being tested with amazing success in mice, preventing the spread of almost every form of cancer. It was hailed as the coming cure.
Some angiogenesis inhibitors have proven to be very helpful in treating cancer, but they are not a cure. They aren't nearly as effective in humans as they were in mice, it appears.
I'm always skeptical (and you should be too), when you hear about something that isn't even in clinical trials, as a possible cure for some disease people get. People simply don't respond the same as mice.
That said, this does look promising as an avenue, but I wouldn't go out and take up smoking just yet.
Okay, let's think about this for a second.
A cancerous cell is one that doesn't know when to quit. It is outside the normal cell cycle, and not listening to every cell's built in death trigger. Forvige my lack of specific biology terminalogy.
So these mice are "cancer-resistant"? When exposed to carcenigous, do they ignore them? When exposed to massive ammounts of UV light, do they tan but not burn? Do they burn but not get skin cancer? If you clogged thier lungs with cig smoke, would they develop a cough but not cancer?
How the frak does this work? Are the little mice cells just really tuned into thier death trigger? When a cell mutates enough that it doesn't listen to it's death trigger, it is a cancer. Are these mice just impervious to cell mutation?
If so, wouldn't that make them an evolutionary dead end? Cancer, while bad, is a by-product of evolution. If cells weren't allowed to ever mutate again, would that spell the end of mice evolution? And if we impart that "cancer-immunity" to we humans, would that spell the end of evolution?
By all means, someone correct what I have wrong. Biology was never my strong suit. (Nor is spelling)
There are no gods but ourselves.
"The cancer resistance trait so far has been passed to more than 2,000 descendants in 14 generations"
If you cure cancer, you get laid.
When you smoke the right shit, you can talk with God. Take more of it and it feels like you ARE god.
The next day, you feel like your tongue is made of asbestos, though.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
i think they are more interested in the ability to transplant white blood cells to a non-immune mouse. there have always been people (or mice) that have been naturally resistant to cancers, just as there are those who are more likely to get it then average... whats huge is the ability to give the later a shot of something and turn them into the resistant type.
Large scale human eugenics isnt possible... too many people doing thinge 'au natural' to be able to control the outcome.
I for one welcome our new cancer resistant rat overlords.
No matter where you go, there you are.
"can I get a transplant donor soul?"
Yes.
--Prince of Lies.
Sad thing is that it still isn't transferrable to humans. From what I've read, it also works for pigs, rats and mice, but not humans.. Oh well, give or take another 20 years, I've got time...
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
Why that's positively unscientific!
I dunno. It sounds truthy.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em!
The cancer resistant mouse is the normal one and all the others are the mutants?
I for one welcome our new Immortal Mice Overlords...
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Yes, I'm sure they were planning on taking this and immediately making the same changes to human DNA. Good thing you're here to tell us all how genetics work and warn us of the dangers of immediately applying a finding in one species to all species without further research, or else we'd be in big trouble.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
they are able to provide "lifetime cancer protection"
:)
I see, so the protection lasts right until they die... from cancer. I think Aleve can do this just as well
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
welcome our cancer-resistant rodent overlords.
Only when they unplug it from the electrodes inserted into its brain.
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
All that money spent in research, and all we come up is with better mice! Plus I don't think they care too much about having cancer.
Life is about being a Phoenix!
Richard Gere is all smiles and breathing a sigh of relief.
so far has been passed to more than 2,000 descendants in 14 generations
So... a cancer resistant male would be considered a premier breeding stallion...
Thinking of a "cancer gene" is misleading. Imagine a net of rubber bands all knotted togethor. Changing one gene will "stretch a rubber band" differently possibly affect all the other aspects of the organism, often unpredictably.
This cancer gene could be the one that also gives humans a soul. We can't tell with a mouse, of course, because they only speak in pips and squeaks, but scientists should know all the risks involved with creating such a possible genetic enhancement.
You're a moron, Mr. Rifkin. Seriously, though, this is the type of comment that lies outside of answering, outside of science, and beyond reason. You can't win an argument with someone like this, and it's not even worth trying. It's a religious matter. For much of human history, such thoughts set the policies of governments. Then, we discovered reason and science. But the pendulum seems to swinging back the other way again.
They say that if you turn up with cancer you'd be well advised to be a mouse, since the treatments work so much better.
Telomerase structure has been identified.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4698264.stm
that you gain their anticancer properties by eating them so I start seeing nutty stuff like Mousicles and Xtra-Kreemy Mac-n-Mice in the health food aisle.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Cancer gene is misleading? That's where cancer comes from! Radiation and chemical effects of cancer change are present in the restructuring of DNA strands during the dna replication phases of cellular reproduction. That's why you have multiple treatments of x-rays for a cancer treatment, to kill cells that were in between reproductive cycles. And what rubber band is stretched? The replication sequence follows a straight path on the individual rna strands. It doesn't look at multiple locations on different strands before deciding to create a protein. If they created a stop codon that blocks unrestricted, accelerated cellular reproduction (cancer), then great. But if this affects the "soul gene," then I think James Brown might sue.
This only end up producing cancer resistant mouse resistant cancer.
What?
This cancer gene could be the one that also gives humans a soul. Bwahahahah. There's my belly laugh for the day.
Ha! So now I bet Lennie couldn't kill all those mice!
Well as terrified as I am about the "cancer gene" messing with the "soul gene", I'm willing to take the chance. Oh and last I checked, neurobiology has made some headway in cracking this whole "soul mystery" thing. Turns out that human individuality might actually be created by something called a "long interspersed nuclear element". A lot less handwaving than a "soul gene". LA Times has a rather extensive article on it and although the LINE is similar to a gene it's considered a precursor...
Assuming that this article isn't completely incorrect, I'd say it's pretty safe to say that we'll have trouble fucking it up. It exists in every mammal [including mice] and has existed for well over 600 Million years. Fun read on a fascinating topic.
That's kinda cool.
So then we could transplant that gene and
1) Give plants souls
2) Give animals souls
3) Give bacteria souls
We already have a clearly soulless population of humans (CEO's and Lawyers) so we could isolate the difference between their genes and the rest of the populace to isolate this cancer-causing soul making gene.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
This cancer gene could be the one that also gives humans a soul.
Hmm, lessee.. no cancer in my lifetime in exchange for something I've never had any use for. Man, hard choice.
Ch-ching!
Next week, maybe I'll get to trade group sex for herpes.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
No, wireless non-cancerous mice are in the next lab over: Behavioral Studies.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
This is a rather remarkable finding, though very fortuitous (as many great discoveries are). The "cancer resistance" trait is heritable, so it can ultimately be mapped to specific gene(s) -- that is the most exciting finding, along with the fact that the physiological effect has already been mapped to white blood cells. This way, when the gene is discovered, both the mechanism of cancer resistance and the genetic basis for it will be readily discernable.
I, for one, am horrified at what they are doing to these poor little mice! Injecting them with cancerous cells, just to see if new white blood cells will fight the cancer? When does it stop! Think about the poor little things, squeaking, squeaking, flailing their little limbs, their cute little whiskers all a-quiver. And then they get stuck with *another* needle, in their stomach! I can tell you from experience, that ain't comfortable! [/sarcasm]
Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
"The cancer resistance trait so far has been passed to more than 2,000 descendants in 14 generations,"
So that is all the Brain had to do.... find a cure for cancer.
"... able to provide "lifetime cancer protection"."
The article fails to mention that 'lifetime' can be greatly affected by the neighboring reptile obesity study.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!
Wow, who knew the bus to hell had such comfy chairs.
Because if they did, wouldn't that just make life so easy. Either way, this is a fantastic step in the right direction. It looks like nature was able to do what our science has yet to accomplish.
Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
So that's the secret method of transferring the immunity to humans!
Good news, it's a suppository!
Cancer?!
Here I thought all I had to worry about was carpel tunnel.....
They'll be delivered as a suppository, though they'll make a bit of a squeaking sound as they are inserted in your ass.
en tee
C'mon, man - everybody knows whities ain't got the soul gene.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
From the article: "The next step is to understand the exact way in which it works, and perhaps eventually design such a therapy for humans." Gee... he's really going out on a long speculative limb, there. I suppose he thinks that curing cancer easily, quickly, cheaply and without debilitating side-effects may have some practical application. Well, that's why they pay scientists the big bucks, for that vision thing.
You wouldn't be the first to do so.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
I am still curious as to how a scientist can believe there is no God. I thought the best you could get with the scientific method was that you haven't found Him yet.
Tan, Tab and smokes. Partay!
As exciting as this sounds, it's probably not going to lead to a pancea for cancer in humans. We've cured cancer in mice several times over since the 70s. The problem is that mice are a short-lived species that has very little innate resistance to cancer. After all evolution is not going to have an organism waste lots of energy repairing DNA damage and having pools of immune cells constantly checking for mutant cells if the organism is just going to get eaten by a cat in an average of a few months after birth.
By contrast, humans are a very long-lived animal species. Our bodies already have a large number of cancer-prevention mechanisms that simply aren't present in mice. Take for example telomeres. The telomere ends of chromosomes shorten with each cell replication other than gamete formation. All your cells have what is known as the 'Hayflick limit' where the telomeres get too short, the chromosomes become unstable and the cell dies. Although this mechanism is probably one of the contributors to human aging, it also does a very good job of eliminating many tumors. Most of your tumors hit the Hayflick limit and simply die off before they can present a threat to you. Virtually all human cancers either mutate so as to find a way to reactivate the telomerase that re-lengthens the telomeres or manages to find a way to preserve their telomere ends through chromosomal recombination. Mouse cells, by way of contrast, have huge telomeres which never get short enough to act as this sort of cancer-prevention mechanism.
As a result human tumors are much 'tougher' than mouse tumors. The average mouse tumor wouldn't stand a chance in a human. Any tumor that manages to thrive in a human has had to jump a host of hurdles and checkpoints that no mouse tumor does in order to simply survive.
The problem is that many of these cancer cures in mice already exist in humans naturally. Some of these cures (such as this one, most likely) are simply reactivation of vestigial anti-cancer systems in the mice that have atrophied for the above-mentioned reasons. Others are cancer treatments that attack weaknesses in mouse tumors that are simply irrelevant in human ones. I suspect that this super mouse is simply being more human with regards to cancer and that the end result is that we'll rediscover something our bodies already do.
"The transplanted white blood cells not only killed existing cancers, but also protected normal mice from what should have been lethal doses of highly aggressive new cancers. " So we need to find the possible human running around who has the same genetic WBC born abilities of these mice? Maybe start injecting cancer patients with WBC's of other random ultra healthy humans until we find similar effects? If it doesn't cause ill side effects then I don't see why not try?
For some reason I refuse to use either spell check or the spacebar properly.
Whether a soul exists or not is debatable, but I think we can all agree that if we have a soul, it should transcend the possesion of a single gene. Otherwise, its not much of a soul. I know you are not suggesting this, but if a soul can depend on a single gene, then can't it also depend on a single hair cut, or a particular level of intelligence, or a particular skin color. One of the compelling things about the idea of a soul is that it would can mean that human beings are similar in a way that doesn't depend on any of these things. If a Creator did endow us with a soul, then I don't think he would give us a single gene to switch it off anymore than a plane engineer would put a "press to crash now" button right next to your volume control on the airline seat :-). That being said, I agree with the idea making any changes to the human germline is of course potentially very dangerous, for many different reasons, but I don't think they were talking about doing this in this article.
They're Pinky and The Brain
Yes, Pinky and The Brain
One is a genius
The other's insane.
They're laboratory mice
Their genes have been spliced
They're dinky
They're Pinky and The Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Brain.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Oh, get over yourself. You've just got your panties in a wad because of the word "soul" -- replace that word with "fingers", "sense of humor" or "soprano singing voice" and suddenly you've got a type of comment that's NOT "outside of answering, outside of science, and beyond reason." In other words, stop picking semantic nits and address the (ahem) soul of the comment: screwing around with the human genome isn't something that we want to do in the "shotgun" fashion that most new technologies are explored -- unlikely as it is, we might just get a Kahn Singh for our trouble.
(There. I successfully integrated "religion", "Star Trek" and "biology" in a single thread without going off-topic. Much.)
This cancer gene could be the one that also gives humans a soul.
Don't worry, thanks to the Human Genome project, we have already mapped the "soul" gene and it just so happens that it is exactly the same gene as the cancer gene. I have good news: You won't be getting cancer. The bad news is, you don't have soul.
Now finally we'll see a decrease in senseless mouse deaths.
Stewart Little
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Only part of it and only for tetrahymena, not human. It is much more difficult for a number of reasons.
This is brilliant thinking, truly brilliant...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
...it's probably half Cylon.
No one got beat up more often than the mimes of the old west!
...doncha think?
Actually, I hope these mice are TIGHTLY controlled. If they do get out into the general laboratory mouse population, it could really skew the results of many tests that may later be performed on humans.
Because it's just that, a belief. Everything I've seen, all evidence points to "no". Now, I can't PROVE there isn't a God. Another matter entirely.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Telomerase is huge in oncology. Basically, there are two steps involved in generating cancer:
1) Transformation, in which the cell begins to replicate outside of normal controls. You can get a tumour this way, but without step 2, the tumour doesn't get very far before the cells start to grow quiescent - they lose vitality and stop dividing.
The reason they slow down is that their telomeres have degraded. Telomeres are long stretches of "junk" DNA at the end of each chromosome. Every cycle of DNA replication erodes the end of each chromosome (due to the way replication works at the molecular level). Telomeres absorb this loss without causing erosion of active genes.
A human zygote cell is only capable of ~80-90 cell divisions before these telomeres have fully eroded and active genes are affected. Fortunately, 2^90 is plenty of cells for an adult with a typical lifespan.
2) Activation of telomerase. The purpose of telomerase seems to be to refresh telomeres in the genes of sperm/egg cells to start the cycle fresh for a new human. In "successful" cancer, telomerase permits the cancerous cells to reproduce indefinitely by maintaining telomeres.
*wistful sigh* Ah, the PhD I never did. Then again, I can afford to feed my family in my current career...
Anyone who studies diseases will tell you that all diseases evolve and mutate. A few years here and there of longer life then man's complatencey kicks in then boom another strain hits and you have a new type of the same old cancer and it is a "New killer". Diseases are in and a part of the evolutionary pool too. Drax Wraith
unfortunately, it has been found that it is a special chemical in the tail that provides the resistance.
In other news, Scientist have teamed up with fashion designer Ralph Loren to test market special jeans and skirts with button-fly tail holes in the back.
Mouse-resistant cancer is one thing, but worm-resistant cancer is the real crown jewel.
>> Cancer Resistant Mouse Provides Possible Cure
Just dissolve one under your tongue every 8 hours...
I dunno. It sounds truthy.
Indubitably.
Your loop is leaking scared elephants.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
There are two different ways to do this.
The first is by expression profiling- looking at difference in gene expression. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_chip This will actually give you a readout of how the two cells are different in terms of how they use different genes to express their differences.
The other is positional cloning. You basically breed a resistant mouse with a non-resistant mouse to get an F1 intercross. If you are dealing with inbred mice, these are genetically identical but each chromosome is different- one from mom and one from dad. You breed this generation with eachother to get an F2 intercross and then phenotype the offspring (are they resistant to cancer?) and then genotype them (what are their genetic differences?). Genes undergo semi-random reassortment through cross-over events and all offspring in the F2 incross have a random sprinkling of genes from mom and dad. You then do linkage analysis to find out which genetic differences are most closely linked to the phenotype you are looking for.
(There. I successfully integrated "religion", "Star Trek" and "biology" in a single thread without going off-topic. Much.)
Ferris Bueller, You're my hero...
That was awesome... If I had 'em I'd do it myself, but I seem to have misplaced them...somebody mod parent up!
Fantastic! I am very excited about this development. Will there be an ergonomic model released to prevent me from getting RSI, too? Perhaps a cancer-resistant trackball is in order.
... oh. Nevermind.
Do these reports suggest that cancer cells really do not grow "in a vacuum," but are affected by control mechanisms that already exist in the body? Does cancer reach a detectable size because these controls have failed? If so, could such controls be identified, and enhanced in patients to provide new therapies? In fact, how do cancer cells actually "succeed" in patients? Do they actively inhibit protective processes that ordinarily would prevent cancer? Do cancers occur continuously during our lifetimes, yet are eliminated by internal mechanisms so that they are never seen? http://www1.wfubmc.edu/cancer/research/mice/summar y.htm
Guess it's a blessing and a curse.
You'll never die of cancer, on the other hand you and your offspring are destined to be cut up and analysed.....
Anti-bioscience is only common among theologians who don't have cancer. But if Pat Robertson grew an inoperable tumor tomorrow, I imagine we'd discover pretty soon that God is A-OK with gene therapy.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
Try telling that to James Brown
Good God, y'all, HUH!
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
the mouses resistance to overdosing on saccharin?
Not found him? I'm not sure many scientists are even looking for such a being.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Being a current cancer patient (Hodgkin's), this research looks very promising. Let's hope someone fast tracks this research with some good money and facilities. Chemo sucks!
Really wish everyone would stop using the I, for one cliche.
Sheesh...
... and free them all! (sarcasm in case explanation is needed)
People naturally resistant to cancer? Yeah... those of us who like fruit and vegetables more than meat and cigarettes.
Reap a Jeep
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
... and thought, "Please let it include a scroll wheel..."?
Just because it can't be explained doesn't mean it isn't true. Science fits into reality... not the other way around.
But if Pat Robertson grew an inoperable tumor tomorrow, I imagine we'd discover pretty soon that God is A-OK with gene therapy.
ObDoonesbury.
Here is the off-topic, off-color reference
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
You mean like Linda McCartney?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_McCartney
Fortunately, 2^90 is plenty of cells for an adult with a typical lifespan.
2^90 cells would form a sphere of flesh about 15 kilometers across, or roughly equivalent to the entire biomass of planet earth. Now that's a lot of deep dish pizzas.
Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
The data is still useful, however, as it allows us to identify wether the systems that we've theorized the human body uses to combat cancer actually do so, and gives us the opportunity to fiddle with such systems without injecting experimental chemicals into our next-door neighbor. At the least, it provides confirmation regarding the reliability of previous data.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
I am still curious as to how a scientist can believe there is no God.
This seems like a very strange comment. Semantically, there is a very strong contrast between "believe" and "have absolute blind faith". For example, I believe that there is no God, but I don't have absolute blind faith about anything, including there being no God. I'm an Athiestic Agnositic. Something that I am curious to know is how any scientist could be anything other than this, as this is the only intellectually honest position on the subject in light of the rational analysis of all available evidence on reality and human weaknesses.
I thought the best you could get with the scientific method was that you haven't found Him yet.
You almost seem to presume that a scientist would waste his time looking for God. I haven't been looking for monkeys flying out of my butt either. But, if you have at your disposal some notion of a scientifically verifiable means to prove the existence of God, let 'er rip!
...cancer resistant BLOOOOOOOD!
Damn, it'll be cool being a blood zombie, hunting down the cancer resistant and taking their blood.
I drank what? -- Socrates
1. How many buttons?
2. Is it USB Compatible?
3. Are there Linux drivers for it?
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
Generally, even scientists who think of themselves as atheists aren't denial atheists. This means that they don't believe that there is a god, not that they believe that there is no god. If you don't see the difference, I'd guess that you're not a native english speaker, as it's rather dramatic and noticeable to those of us that grew up with the language.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
In the defense of religion, you have to decide what to do somehow. Science only gives options and explanations, whereas religion gives a system by which an option might be selected and an analysis utilized. If we completely lost all forms of assertive belief, human society would stop just as surely as if we lost all forms of logical analysis and empirical thought.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Linux is clearly superior to genetic research since Linux has better diff utils.
I love my sig.
So when God gave me a soul he also gave me cancer? What a jerk.
The idea of a soul transcending the physical is a fairly recent invention, actually, cropped up a bit into the rennaisance. In the original form of christianity, at least, the soul represented the totality of what made you you, so your body (including genes, I suppose) would be as much a part of your soul as anything else. So, no, a large number of people would not necessarily agree that a human soul should necessarily transcend the posession of a single gene. Not that it mattered, because it was the grace of god that was important, not having a soul, necessarily.
'Gene' is also a bit fuzzily defined... but then, after several thousand years of philosophers with a penchant for redefining words however they felt like, so is "soul", so i'll just not pursue that point.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Woah there, get a grip. I don't understand why some people flip out so badly whenever someone mentions something vaugely related to religion. The underlying point is perfectly reasonable if you can read it with an open mind.
The point is - we know very little about how the human body really works. Therefore, it might not be such a good idea to go changing around our DNA, since even with extensive testing, it's hard to know exactly what those changes will really do. That's not to say we should never ever change our DNA, but we have to be aware of what the long-term consequences could be.
What if we make ourselves more vulnerable to some other disease or condition? What if we screw up some rare but essential functionality for some part of our bodies? What if we change some aspect of how our brains function? What if it's a subtle change that doesn't show up for several generations? These are the things that we have to consider anytime we think about making changes to our DNA.
I don't reply to ACs
If we're able to breed mice that react to cancer more like people, it will be much easier to study the sorts of cancers people suffer from.
I think it is one thing to say that the soul transcends the physical, and another to say that it transcends a single gene. Biology seems to tell us that if we were technologically capable of doing it, in principle we could take a fertilized human egg, and change its dna enough so that it would develop into, say, a dog. Whether such a creature would have a soul or not is a matter of debate. However, I would claim that this is a different debate than whether we should be able to remove our soul, or our humanity if you like, by changing a single "gene", or even some small collection of genes. My guess is this is by no means an answered question either. It is also, I think, a different question than whether our soul has a existence that is somehow independent of our physical body.
Radiation poisoning will kill you dead with or without cancer resistance.
The action of gamma rays on animal cells is akin to microwave cooking- it heats the cell from the inside out. Not only does this damage DNA, it plain old just kills the cell outright.
Cancer is only a factor if the cell survives exposure.
I say the same thing about organ transplant. Sure, it works fine in between animals. but what if they accidentally remove the organ responsible for our soul?
3. A cancer needs to avoid detection by the immune system. It wasn't well known until "The Boy in the Bubble" died, that the immune system normally kills many cancers. This step is important, since the article mentions white blood cells as the key.
Mouser Brand cigarettes will be a huge success. The only brand with a Surgeon General's Recommendation: "Mouser Brand cigarettes have been proven to fight cancer in a lab."
You're right on a lot of details, but you seem to misunderstand the relationship between "Hayflick's Limit" and the longevity of a species.
w ww.senescence.info/cells.html+%22mouse+cells+divid e+roughly+15+times%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1[Goo gle Cache]
Read around the higlighted area of this page:
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:9GiRpofmvSgJ:
I may be naturally more resistant to cancer than most people, because my Immune system is extra aggressive, with some minor side effects:
My immune system thinks my skin and sinovial(sp?) membranes are cancerous; so they attack, causing psioriasis and arthritis; other possible areas it can attack are, my eyes causing blindness, serotonin (causing migraines, but my doctor thinks it's blood sugar related), my liver (causing death), nerve sheaths (my pain scale goes to 11)...
But, I probably won't die of Cancer... that is, unless my immune suppressent drugs weaken my immune system so much that it can't fight back at all. I've already had two life-threatening infections, and I've gone into shock twice.
other pluses: when I get a cold or flu, I feel better, because my immune system is fighting a real threat (I think), and if I'm not able to work because of it, I get $1500 a month from the government!, unfortunetly, it took the SSA 5 years to process my claim, by which time I've returned to work.
I hear Sharks don't get cancer; probably because their genes are stable.
(CAPTCHA: biopsies)
Thanks, Rif!
will develop cancer - not?
Seems like the old saw has been turned on its head.
Oh well, what the hell...
Richard Gere for curing prostate cancer! *hides in shame*
but some people don't like growing a tail and whiskers... ...do I smell cheese?
Oh well, what the hell...
Next week, maybe I'll get to trade group sex for herpes.
Why trade? Some people manage to get both.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Is a Slashdot-resistant server...
There are many copies.
And they have a plan.
Doesn't anyone question where this first mouse came from in 1999? With all the testing done on laboratory mice, isn't it entirely possible that scientists created Mighty Mouse in the first place? But they don't say anything about it's origin. These mice are raised in a controlled environment so that they are all a constant in future test cases. And if one of the parents also carried the gene, then wouldn't more offspring also carry it? Or.... did something happen to this particular mouse that scientists don't care to mention at this point in time? Maybe i'm taking an evolutionistic approach to this. Maybe this mouse is really a messiah, born from a virgin mother in a hay loft to save mouse-kind. We know it can already stop cancer, all it needs to do now is turn water into cheese!
Thinking of a "cancer gene" is misleading. Imagine a net of rubber bands all knotted togethor. Changing one gene will "stretch a rubber band" differently possibly affect all the other aspects of the organism, often unpredictably.
Um... No. Genetic science is already at the point where they're manufacturing transgenic animals based on having correctly identified a gene, and inserting it into an organism with a specific trigger, padding the insertion as needed. I'm looking at some such creatures in my aquarium right now ("Glofish" that have sea coral Red Flourescence Protein in their muscle tissue).
This cancer gene could be the one that also gives humans a soul. We can't tell with a mouse, of course, because they only speak in pips and squeaks, but scientists should know all the risks involved with creating such a possible genetic enhancement.
This is not a problem in the slightest... in fact it is an opportunity! If you have this reservation, do not make use of such treatments if/when they arrive. Too bad the "I don't believe in evolution" crowd doesn't practice this and stop using updated flu shots, etc... Seriously though... if this was a real concern, would you then consider all people with mutations to be possibly soulless? Perhaps it's some interesting theory you have about the white people? (mutation occured, hence no soul) *rimshot*
...how do they get all those mice to smoke tiny cigarettes?
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Because everyone knows that the only way you can decide what's right and wrong is to have an invisible friend in the sky to tell you what to do.
Umm Yeah!
I doubt that a 15km sphere is the "entire biomass". There is probably more than that in nematodes alone.
I remember seeing a program on TV quite a few years ago about a woman who got cancer and the cancer went into remission then it came back and then it went away. It kept doing this in cycles. She appeared to be immune in that she didn't die. I think she wanted them to study it but they told her that she'd become a lab rat and that's no way to live so she didn't do it. Still I find it hard to believe that the impact in someone's lifestyle would be that great. Anyway, maybe it was a hoax but I think it was on Dateline NBC or something of that nature.
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
I think it's reasonable to say that the majority of those who don't believe in a god also believe that the gods described in most any religious text you care to mention don't exist.
:)
Of course there is also the "word game god" who is apparently impossible to kill, and that people hypocriticaly use in argument all the while believing in other specific gods (that don't exist
Laugh-a if you want monkey-boy, but that's what I sold my soul for. Well, that and enormous riches and a pretty wife and ...
Another pissy email from oh, but that would be telling ...
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
I bow down in shame.
Facinating results with potentially huge implications, but according to the New York Times (login required, use BugMeNot), none of the results from this lab have been replicated elsewhere; despite discovering this cancer-resistant mouse three years ago, they haven't shared it with any other lab, so both papers on the topic are from the same people/lab. Not that I don't believe them, but a discovery like this which is so unlike anything seen before clearly needs to be independently verified.
Shades of "The Immortal" http://imdb.com/title/tt0064475/. And, yes, I'm old enough to remember watching it when it was first broadcast.
Yes, but what about DRM, Linux, and the Nintendo Wii?
We can't really do the same thing to humans, a minor issue of ethics stopping us.
Don't worry, within a couple years or so Our Boys in Iraq will be working on it.
*ducks*
I then went to the other parts of http://www.senescence.info/ and found more great info. Thanks.
Good thing we don't retain the old cells... my odd neighbor excluded, of course.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
It's far too profitable to irradiate and sell poisons (in the form of chemo) to cancer patients than it is to offer a cure.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
The Immortal
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064475/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065303/
You've obviously never seen this guy work his magic.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I doubt that a 15km sphere is the "entire biomass". There is probably more than that in nematodes alone.
According to Google Answers, the total biomass of Earth is 1.25 trillion metric tons. Assuming 1 ton / m^3, this works out to a sphere about 14km across. Next time use math, not intuition.
Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
From the article:
For one thing, if a virulent tumor was planted in a normal mouse's back, and the transplanted white blood cells were injected into the mouse's abdomen, the cells still found the cancer without harming normal cells. The kind of cancer didn't seem to matter.
This article should be titled, "Reasearchers Introduced to Normal Immune Function." How do they think non-super t-cells find tumors, by hiring a tour guide?
The implication is that until this super mouse came along, nobody had any cancer resistance at all. And yet I'd venture to say, cancer and viruses are the two things immune systems handle best.
This system forms a first line of host defense against pathogens, such as bacteria.
Bacteria, lol. As if.
If they reproduce the most, then they are the fittest, most suited to their environment.
We are evolving. You just don't like the direction.
Well, what are you going to do about it? Create a society where smart, good-natured people have the most kids?
Good luck.
Over all these years we've mainly been discovering cures for rats and mice. I'm looking for volunteers male and female between 18 and 26 willing to have their spinal cord irradiated with an "moderate" amount of X-rays. Mail me if you're interested.
If scientist have figured out how to kill cancers now and are able to create them (if they cant create them then they cant test that they've killed them.
Does this mean that they could give someone cancer and then eventually, then kill cancer cells so they never grow too much, but as cancer cells dont naturally die, if their growth is controlled, does this mean we could really cure death from old age?
If they manage to cure all known illnesses and death by aging, all we'd have to worry about is death from injury.
I love the smell of burning karma in the morning...
It was another accidental discovery of a mouse that spontaneously developed special abilities.
I really want to see a cancer-resistant regenerating super-mouse, especially if an injection of mouse serum confers these powers on ordinary people, er, mice.
The description of this research is completely misleading. These mice are not resistant to cancer in general - they (direct quote from the paper) "possess a unique autosomal dominant trait that allows them to survive challenges with aggressive mouse cancer cells". This is an important distinction. These mice have been bred to withstand implantation with specific foreign tumour cells (called S180) - basically a laboratory model for tumour growth. Nowhere does it say that these mice are more or less susceptible to developing cancer the old fashioned way by exposure to carcinogens, etc. If you blasted these bad boys with UV or gave them a good dose of tobacco smoke, they would still get cancer. Shoot them up with S180 tumour cells, and they won't take. Big leap from one to the other - but there's no chasm of logic that the media can't cross for a good headline.
I guess I watched too much TV as a kid, though I only saw one episode or so of this one...
"Run for your Life", starring Ben Gazarra. Probably late 60's.
Quick synopsis: There's something funny about his blood - a transfusion form him makes people get better. There's some old rich guy who's kind of sickly, and wants to keep on living. So he wants to capture the character played by Ben Gazarra and keep him on hand for blood tranfusions. Meanwhile, Ben's character doesn't like this idea, so he's constantly on the run. There may have been subplots about others interested in his blood, his basic desire to do good balanced against freedom, etc.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
If we completely lost all forms of assertive belief, human society would stop just as surely as if we lost all forms of logical analysis and empirical thought.
Heh.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
You're right. It was a troll. Sorry, and thanks for responding honestly.
Religion is a fairy tale with zealots behind it to most Slashdotters. Bringing any such thing into a debate on science is like going into a bar full of football fans and going "Did you see the opera last night? Wasn't the dame just fantastic!?". No one there cares, you're talking crap to them and always will be.
Religion has over the years do a lot of harm to science and so everyone wants to keep it the hell away from it. I personally have no problem with religions, they teach some good things (Everyone is equal, act how you want others to act etc), but they also have some bad parts. These bad parts fill up the grey areas or turn people against each other for no reason at all and all of them say "believe because it's true, we just told you it's true so believe it". Which everyone will tell you is extremely dangerous.
Now I personally don't think we know everything and there is as much room for a God as there is for pink fuzzy dice. But untill I see some real evidence I'm not going to listen to crack pot theories like "Don't play with the cancer, it'll take your soul away" (even though I use the same excuse for avoiding having my picture taken). The post wasn't saying "We don't know what 2+2 is yet, so lets not try fucking with 2 okay?" the post is clearly saying "ZOMG YOU COULD LOSE YOUR SOUL!", but we have no evidence for or against a soul. It's just silly basicly.
One thing you have to remember with Slashdot is also a lot of the people here have never had any major problems. Some have been through hell and back, but there are a lot of college kids who have never had any problem beyond a bigger kid hitting them some times. They've never needed God, which is a major thing for religion. I mean when you're down and basicly fucked (lets say with cancer), you'll try anything to live. If that something is praying to fictional beings then you'll still give it a whirl, one day these people will be in need of some hope and they'll turn to religion just like many others have.
Religion is hope for the hopeless. A set of crutchs for the wounded and a basic survival tactic. There's nothing wrong with it, but you have to take it for what it is and not a cult where every rule must be followed to the letter. Never use it as a basis for anything science wise because it has very little science behind it.
I like muppets.
OMFG... I think there are mice Nazis running the science places all over the world! WE ARE SOON TO HAVE A MASTER MOUSE!!! How long until they learn to get out of their cages and poison the scientists researching them? DARWIN! :P