If you try to mimic the idea of a computer developing "anti-bodies" to combat computer viruses, would it not then be possible for the computer to inadvertantly develop a defense for legitimate code?
.
. In other words, would your computer become "allergic" to certain programs?
Yup, that's exactly what happens with our own immune systems. There are many diseases (called autoimmune diseases) which are caused by some part of our normal response to foreign matter incorrectly acting against ourselves. A whole new world for computer virus writers, try to produce the code snippet which will cause the fancy computer immune system to destroy itself.
In addition, if the virus only responds to the receptors found on cancer cells (which is, I imagine, how it works), then there is next to no chance of it ever infecting normal healthy cells.
Actually, according to the company's web site, the virus can infect any cell but it only reproduces in cells with an active Ras gene. The Ras gene is (I think) the first "oncogene" ever discovered. An oncogene is a gene which when turned on causes the cell to reproduce. In some types of cancer something goes wrong and causes an oncogene to turn on and stay on leading to a tumor. Ras is involved in a large number of different types of cancers so this therapy has the potential to be useful to many, many people.
What's not clear from the info provided by the company is why the naturally occuring virus which many people show evidence of exposure to doesn't cure cancer. Is their treatment somehow modified? Does it rely on highly concentrated local applicaion of the virus? Or is there some other trick to it?
Look at history people. The only time a civilization or humanity has been "displaced" has been because the people self-destructed, not because of their inventions, mechanical creations, or otherwise
Ok, this is just silly. Never in the past has a civilization had the technology to create something with the ability to displace it. We still don't have that ability now. In the future we might, if we can make something "better" (i.e. stronger, faster, smarter) than we are. I don't see any fundamental reason why science should be unable to create something more capable than the products of evolution if given enough time.
Also, in the past civilizations have been replaced when something better came along. Usually another civilization with better technology and maybe superior intrinsic abilities in the case of Neanderthal vs. Homo sapiens.
This isn't some cure that they genetically engineered, spending billions of dollars to splice DNA into an organism. It was literally 'found' in a rock pool. They stumbled across it.
Well, true. But they "stumbled across it" while spending millions of dollars testing every potentially useful substance they could think of against a wide variety of pathogens. They only reason a company (which is in business to make money) would do this is if there is some reasonable expectation that there is money to be made. Take that away and the research disappears too. One could probably make the argument that the government should be responsible for all of medical research or that they should reimburse the company for their effort (plus a reasonable profit). But I'm not sure it's such a good idea.
That should not give them exclusive rights for 20-30 years (including sneaky tie-in patents after the original patent has expired) to sell this potentially life-saving cure at inflated prices to the world.
While I'm certainly opposed to patenting organisms which already exist in nature, a process to reliably, cleanly, efficiently isolate a useful substance from that organism is usually not obvious. Much like finding the organism in the first place it's going to require lots of money, time, and brains, if the companies involved can't get a return on their investment they'll get out of the business. If you want to reform patent law I'm all ears but you gotta replace it with something that leaves money available for this kind of research.
David
Wow! Three posts, maybe I should get a sig.
Re:Oh boy...
on
Goodbye, Dolly
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yes, but if the rumors of premature aging are true, they may actually have some science to base their argument on. You see there's this very important substance called telomeres attached to the end of chromosomes. As cells divide, the telomere caps become shorter, and eventually the cells stop dividing and either malfunction or die. It stands to reason that, if you start off with an adult cell, you already have shortened telomeres and will therefore have a reduced lifespan. [Any biology experts should feel free to correct me.]
Rather than terminate Dolly, I'd rather they have experimented with telomerase to see if they could rejuvinate her. Although, I guess that's a little on the unethical and cruel side.
This is almost right but I just can't let it go without comment.
Telomeres are not so much a substance as a sequence of base pairs located at the ends of chromosomes. They're important because the enzymes used to copy these chromosomes during cell divison can't quite go all the way to the end. In theory this means that there must be a maximum number of replications a cell can go thorugh before you start to loose important information off the end of the DNA molecule.
Some people have speculated that this may be an important cause of aging but I've never seen completely convincing research to support this. Cells do have enzymes called telomerases which can reconstitute these terminal sequences but they do shorten with each generation of cells. The whole effect is complicated.
As to using telemerase to treat Dolly - whatever the effect of telemeres is on aging, Dolly died of a "lung infection" so I don't think her chromosomes were directly to blame.
David
Re:Fun with Nuetrons!!!
on
Science Askew
·
· Score: 1
An ion walks into a bar and says to the bartender "I've lost an electron!"
Slashdot Mirror
Well, as I understand it, the sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace.
That sounds scary but it's quite far away, and that's why it looks so small.
I've recently been watching a documentary which includes some amazing non-lethal weapons being used by the Air Force.
As long as you don't shoot anyone twice.
Actually, according to the company's web site, the virus can infect any cell but it only reproduces in cells with an active Ras gene. The Ras gene is (I think) the first "oncogene" ever discovered. An oncogene is a gene which when turned on causes the cell to reproduce. In some types of cancer something goes wrong and causes an oncogene to turn on and stay on leading to a tumor. Ras is involved in a large number of different types of cancers so this therapy has the potential to be useful to many, many people.
What's not clear from the info provided by the company is why the naturally occuring virus which many people show evidence of exposure to doesn't cure cancer. Is their treatment somehow modified? Does it rely on highly concentrated local applicaion of the virus? Or is there some other trick to it?
David
Ok, this is just silly. Never in the past has a civilization had the technology to create something with the ability to displace it. We still don't have that ability now. In the future we might, if we can make something "better" (i.e. stronger, faster, smarter) than we are. I don't see any fundamental reason why science should be unable to create something more capable than the products of evolution if given enough time.
Also, in the past civilizations have been replaced when something better came along. Usually another civilization with better technology and maybe superior intrinsic abilities in the case of Neanderthal vs. Homo sapiens.
David
Well, true. But they "stumbled across it" while spending millions of dollars testing every potentially useful substance they could think of against a wide variety of pathogens. They only reason a company (which is in business to make money) would do this is if there is some reasonable expectation that there is money to be made. Take that away and the research disappears too. One could probably make the argument that the government should be responsible for all of medical research or that they should reimburse the company for their effort (plus a reasonable profit). But I'm not sure it's such a good idea.
While I'm certainly opposed to patenting organisms which already exist in nature, a process to reliably, cleanly, efficiently isolate a useful substance from that organism is usually not obvious. Much like finding the organism in the first place it's going to require lots of money, time, and brains, if the companies involved can't get a return on their investment they'll get out of the business. If you want to reform patent law I'm all ears but you gotta replace it with something that leaves money available for this kind of research.
David
Wow! Three posts, maybe I should get a sig.
Telomeres are not so much a substance as a sequence of base pairs located at the ends of chromosomes. They're important because the enzymes used to copy these chromosomes during cell divison can't quite go all the way to the end. In theory this means that there must be a maximum number of replications a cell can go thorugh before you start to loose important information off the end of the DNA molecule.
Some people have speculated that this may be an important cause of aging but I've never seen completely convincing research to support this. Cells do have enzymes called telomerases which can reconstitute these terminal sequences but they do shorten with each generation of cells. The whole effect is complicated.
As to using telemerase to treat Dolly - whatever the effect of telemeres is on aging, Dolly died of a "lung infection" so I don't think her chromosomes were directly to blame.
David
An ion walks into a bar and says to the bartender "I've lost an electron!"
Bartender: "You sure?"
Ion: "I'm positive!"