Slashdot Mirror
First Whole Cancer Genome Sequenced
dooling writes "A paper detailing the sequencing of the first human cancer genome will be published in the 6 November 2008 issue of Nature. This is not only the first cancer genome published, it is the first female genome as well. You can read the paper's abstract, DNA sequencing of a cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukaemia genome, or the story in Science News. This issue of Nature also has articles on the sequencing of the first African and Asian genomes. The sequencing in all three articles was done using the Illumina Genome Analyzer, one of the massively parallel, next-generation genome sequencing platforms."
There's always a "but." They sequenced an FAB classification M1 AML. That's nice, but these things tend to have a heterogenous genetic makeup. It'd be nice if they sequenced more of those things and compared them as well.
Umm, no.
Cancer, in general, happens to people well past the age of reproduction. Which means it has little, if any, effect on population growth rates.
If there are diseases you'd like to keep around to prevent overpopulation, may I suggest lobbying to return Smallpox to the wild instead? Or just become a pro-AIDS activist, since the latter seems to be doing a good job of cutting into African population growth.
Seriously, some of you people scare me....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I realize that birth control education/legislation/etc. brings up an entirely new conversation (one I'm not trying to start here) but I'd pretty much support anything that would have kept friends and family from dying a slow, painful death.
We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
Seriously?
People that are no longer able to reproduce still consume resources and are definitely still considered part of the population. The point is that if you curb dieoff you are contributing to population growth.
Moderation: +1 pwnage
The exact opposite holds true and I really wish people would first look at the data before spouting out something. Developed nations with long life expectancies have a lower population growth rate than other nations. In fact the world's population growth rate is going down as more nations become developed. It's expected that the world's population will reach an equilibrium of 12 billion or so in under 40 years.
But at most linearly, and not much - because of increase survival times, as opposed to the geometric effect of birth rates.
On that note, countries with long lives tend to need to support a fair amount of old people, which makes kids expensive, and keeps birth rates down.
Countries where birth rates are high and where life spans are short have a strong correlation. And they keep growing.
Compare, say, any European country or Japan or coastal US vs any sub-Saharan African country.
And as someone with a spouse with cancer, I have to say go fuck yourself.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
I'm interested in your market with exponential growth. I'd like to invest as it seems to give much higher returns than the NYSE, NASDAQ, FTSE, DAX, etc.
or just raise education levels. Japan has negative population growth, and it's not due to government intervention.
as i understand it, they didn't want to invade the U.S., they didn't even really want to go to war with the U.S.
what they wanted was to be like the U.S., and all the other major western powers, and become an industrialized society. but Japan has no domestic oil supply, and since all the European powers were colonizing other lands and spreading their empires at the time, the Japanese wanted to do the same with Southeast Asia.
but the Western nations, particularly the U.S., didn't want Japan to become too powerful, so they prohibited Japan from invading Southeast Asia and basically cut off their oil supply. and since Oil is the lifeblood of any industrial society, Japan broke from the league of nations and later waged war with the U.S. it was really a matter of survival.
i mean, what do you think the U.S. would do if China suddenly cut off all of our foreign oil supplies in the Middle East? we actually have a domestic oil reserve, but we'd still likely declare go to war with China.