Slashdot Mirror
World's Largest Medical Experiment
eldavojohn writes "Recently in the UK, a Biobank project has been rolled out to 'unpick' the genetic basis of diseases such as cancer on half a million volunteers. This is based on the success of a three-month pilot phase conducted on 3,800 participants. From the article: 'Over the next four years, blood and urine samples will be collected from volunteers aged 40 to 69, to help scientists unravel the genetic foundations of common diseases, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, dementia and joint problems. If you live in the UK, agreeing to this survey may involve a little more than you would expect."
Oh get a grip. we KNOW what flouride ion in the water does to you there are craploads of medical documents rolling all the way back ot the 1900's on it.
BTW, My city was used as the control for the origional flouride treatments in the early 1900's Only retarted morons are afraid of the Flouride in water. It's health benefits are only rivaled by clorinating water in making people live longer.
Flouride ions in water consumed by children make a drastic and dramatic change in the reduction of caries and decay in teeth, increasing the health of the general population significantly. Adults get no benefit from the ion and only huge doses like you find in toothpaste actually affect adult teeth.
BTW, way before you get poisoned by Flouride your theeth will mottle. I.E. turn brown from the excess flouride... ask many well water drinters from the southwest about flouride in the water, they have too much in many places from natural ground water.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Just a pity that they don't follow the subjects for a longer period of time. Although one can certainly learn a lot by tracking people for 4 years, I wonder if it is long enough for certain diseases which are, sadly enough, far too common.
As a comparison:
Full Story
Interesting projects in general though, precisely because of their scope.
Here's the participant info:
m ation.php
http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/about/participantinfor
The only clause that raised a flag in my mind was the long-term access to medical records, even in the event you die or become mentally incompetent. Other than that, the terms seem downright sane for such a potentially Orwellian study.
Don't forget the unintentional "experiments" that tested things like:
Will the thinning of the ozone layer result in more cancer?
Will increased pollution cause health problems?
Will increasing the average air temperature over time have health consequences?
Will advertising cigarettes on television lead to more lung cancer?
Will not promoting condoms lead to an increase in HIV transmission?
and many more.
Yes, I know, technically those aren't "medical experiments" but we still have an opportunity to learn from them.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Our environment contains more substances today which cause cells to mutate: estrogen-like chemicals, fine soot particles, innumerous medicines, radioactive decay, socially acceptable behaviors like smoking. Additionally is the continued decay of the athmosphere's blocking of UV radiation (and basement-dweller sensitivity to the sun) and the "ozone layer" problems. Overuse of antibiotics has created "superbugs" we can't completely cure (tubercolosis, staph infections).
If our bodies were not meant to last this long, babies born of old males and young females should have more genetic problems than young males and females. If our sole purpose was to reproduce a few times and die "young" (before 35), then why do our cells have so many proteins dedicated to detecting and repairing chromosome damage? Shouldn't they deactivate after 35 years?
Why would nature keep old people around? How does nature select for old age genes if you reproduce when young? Some theories are that older people pass their life's knowledge to the next generation, without the next generation having to experience it themselves. Older people act as secondary caregivers, freeing the younger generation to do "useful stuff".
There's no reason to believe our bodies were made to wear out at 60 or 70. Eat less calories, more fruit and veggies high in anti-oxidant compounds, exercise (physical labor and mental), and there's no reason that our bodies couldn't last... longer. How much longer? One study says maybe 120 years.
What I'm saying is, without an explicit mechanism for either our digestive systems to start reading the rapidly-decaying DNA floating outside its protective cell walls, or for that DNA to suddenly and spontaneously exhibit bacterial or viral infection vectors, there is no place where things can go wrong on a genetic level. The rest of the plant matter that we can't absorb at that stage of digestion is passed on for further break-down, or excreeted at the final stage. I'm sure you've seen those bits of corn that you couldn't digest, and they're no more dangerous now than before.
There's a great deal of unwarranted fear-mongering going on behind the anti-GM food movement. They're scared of change, and of the pace that change comes at. They yell and scream loudly about it, and stick to their "organic" foods (which is a rather misleading title in itself, as the title of "organic" technically means that it need only contain carbon to be accurate - there's no regulation on this label in most places). Meanwhile, they offer no evidence that anything is wrong, just a lot of FUD. If you wish to say that something is dangerous, that's fine. Give me proof that its dangerous, and I might start listening to you. No "maybe"s or "what if"s. Solid facts, statistically relevant samples, and long term studies. GM foods have been around for roughly 12 years, and in that time over 100 studies have been done and no health risks have been found. I'll source this if you want, although I'm certain you have access to Google too. Until you can show me a reason to be concerned, stop crying wolf. Meanwhile the benefits such as increased yields, decreased maintenance and pesticide reliance, decreased irrigation requirements, and many others are here, real, tested and shown.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
"If our bodies were not meant to last this long, babies born of old males and young females should have more genetic problems than young males and females." Actually, I saw a study the other day (whose details, I admit, escape me now) that showed some evidence that children born to older men do have a higher incidence of neurological developmental disorders. In addition to the problems associated with older women giving birth (Down's syndrome being the best known example). " If our sole purpose was to reproduce a few times and die "young" (before 35), then why do our cells have so many proteins dedicated to detecting and repairing chromosome damage? Shouldn't they deactivate after 35 years?" Only if you evolved a way to stop expressing those proteins past a certain age--and again, once you've procreated, evolution is through with you. Granted, nowadays it's possible to have children later in life, but for most of the natural history of the species, you squeezed out pups as soon as you were able. "There's no reason to believe our bodies were made to wear out at 60 or 70. Eat less calories, more fruit and veggies high in anti-oxidant compounds, exercise (physical labor and mental), and there's no reason that our bodies couldn't last... longer" The body isn't DESIGNED to wear out any more than it's designed to keep working. It's designed to make babies, and anything happening later is irrelevant. And of course, if you limit the amount of carcinogens you ingest and keep yourself fit you'll spare yourself undue wear and tear (both on your genetic material and on the physiological structure), leading to longer life. Admittedly, it's possible that the behavioral/societal benefits of increased longevity could drive the species towards greater life expectancy, and I have no idea what sort of time scale that would operate on, or how beneficial having grandpa around would have to be to make it work. It doesn't really affect my main point: cancer is a natural result of the body's genetic repair/control systems breaking down over time, rather than an unnatural plague as some paint it to be (barring, of course, cases of cancer due to toxic exposures, or radiation).
Curing diseases isn't profitable. Treating symptoms with very expensive drugs is.
Depending on who the research group really is - if they are a pharm corporation they are in no way funded to find a "cure" for anything - but if they are truly independent they may be looking to cure something....
I work with a ton of medical researchers at the university where I work, and many of the research volunteers are doing it just for the sake of science. Yes, it is surprising, but there still are some folks out there motivated by other things than greed. As the earlier poster pointed out, they are compensated for travel time, given free medical treatment and/or drugs, etc. Some even get compensated for their time...
"But this one goes to 11!"