Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Readings will be posted here. This is also where you will write most forum posts. If you aren't sure which readings are required, just check the schedule.
User avatar
ShawnMiller
Site Admin
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:59 pm
Contact:

Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby ShawnMiller » Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:48 am

A Turning Point in Cancer Research: Sequencing the Human Genome by Renato Dulbecco (1986)

Select Definitions

  • Antigen: Any substance that causes the immune system to produce antibodies against it
  • Gene probe: The technique of matching a short segment of DNA or RNA with the matching sequence of bases on a chromosome. Use of this method permits identification of the precise area on a chromosome responsible for the genetic abnormality being investigated
  • Oncogene: A gene that in certain circumstances can transform a cell into a tumor cell
  • Primary culture: Refers to the stage of the culture after the cells are isolated from the tissue and proliferated under the appropriate conditions until they occupy all of the available substrate
  • Retrovirus: Viruses that replicate in a host cell through the process of reverse transcription
  • Sarcoma: A malignant tumor of connective or other nonepithelial tissue

Optional Readings and Resources


lksalinero
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:01 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research

Postby lksalinero » Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:27 pm

The author describes how knowing the sequence of the whole genome would allow researchers to “prepare probes for all the genes and to classify them for their expression in various cell types.” It seems to me like the author is suggesting that that the best way to find important oncogenes is to identify every gene in the genome and determine when and where it is expressed. Knowing what we do now, this seems like a massive and infeasible undertaking; is it possible that in 1986 scientists really anticipated the “gene annotation” process would be as simple as the author makes it sound? I think this emphasizes the value of the HGP only as a platform for science - after all, the final product of the HGP is only a list of 3 billion A’s, T’s, C’s, and G’s.

eridolfi
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:07 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research

Postby eridolfi » Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:38 am

This also seems like a half step in cancer detection to me because it could give genetic data but that's it. It doesn't take environmental risk factors into account. Also, this doesn't seem feasible. If it was really this simple, it could have been done by now.

User avatar
ShawnMiller
Site Admin
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research

Postby ShawnMiller » Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 pm

lksalinero wrote:The author describes how knowing the sequence of the whole genome would allow researchers to “prepare probes for all the genes and to classify them for their expression in various cell types.” It seems to me like the author is suggesting that that the best way to find important oncogenes is to identify every gene in the genome and determine when and where it is expressed. Knowing what we do now, this seems like a massive and infeasible undertaking; is it possible that in 1986 scientists really anticipated the “gene annotation” process would be as simple as the author makes it sound?

Interesting to note that Dulbecco states that sequencing the whole genome will "make it possible to prepare probes for all the genes ..." That something is possible, of course, doesn't make it likely, e.g., if I can't exactly recall the name of my archenemy, it's possible that by reading the entire phonebook I will come across it and that that will jog my memory. But it's also possible that I'll get to the end of the phone book and be no wiser.

So one reading is that Dulbecco was naive about the difficulty of gene annotation; another reading is that he's using a very weak sense of "possibility," where it just means something like, "if we do X, maybe we will be able to do Y." Or, "unless we do X, we definitely won't be able to do Y." This brings up the question of how we can make good decisions about future courses of action -- to do the HGP or not -- from a position of ignorance about how likely a particular outcome is. And how do we determine who to listen to if experts have historically made incorrect predictions?

User avatar
KelseyBS
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:56 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research

Postby KelseyBS » Sun Aug 09, 2015 5:55 pm

lksalinero wrote:The author describes how knowing the sequence of the whole genome would allow researchers to “prepare probes for all the genes and to classify them for their expression in various cell types.” It seems to me like the author is suggesting that that the best way to find important oncogenes is to identify every gene in the genome and determine when and where it is expressed. Knowing what we do now, this seems like a massive and infeasible undertaking; is it possible that in 1986 scientists really anticipated the “gene annotation” process would be as simple as the author makes it sound? I think this emphasizes the value of the HGP only as a platform for science - after all, the final product of the HGP is only a list of 3 billion A’s, T’s, C’s, and G’s.


I have to agree with you. It sounds like he's trying to sell the HGP as a shortcut to the cure for cancer when it may well be an even longer route. I feel as though both projects should be run and while one may help the other, neither should rely on the other to get to the end result. In other words, scientists should do all they can to fight cancer while also working on the Human Genome project. While the results of the HGP may help scientists further cancer research more quickly, pathologists should not wait for the HGP to find the answers.

fdtran
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:49 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby fdtran » Sun Aug 09, 2015 6:40 pm

I agree with much of what my fellow peers have had to say in regards to the reading, in that the author has too many expectations for the HGP and its role in curing cancer. Although the sequencing of a genome has allowed us to understand the mechanism of cancer, finding a cure for cancer is a much different story. Every type of cancer is different from one another, and even people with the same type of cancer may not have an equal effectiveness of treatment due to the unlimited ways of genes causing mutations. I think that we are still a long way from finding a cure to the various kinds of cancer and that collaborating with scientists and doctors on an international level, as the reading suggests, would be our best option.

herrerajen
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:15 am

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby herrerajen » Sun Aug 09, 2015 8:25 pm

Towards the end of the article, Dulbecco speaks in an urgent tone. He enjoins that humans need to be the preferred experimental species for cancer research. A call for such action would "have to be a national effort," for this endeavor would be as ambitious as the space conquest. He argues that many issues concerning development, nervous system, hereditary diseases and others would be solved. Yet, I'm still a little confused about the process of such undertaking. Does he anticipate to study the genome of a person that has a type of cancer? What would be the consequences of doing this, versus a person that does not have cancer? Along with this, I'm interested in knowing whether Dublecco anticipated to sequence the human genome multiple times--for example, having the subject tested when she/he was 16 years old and then at 60.

Bowen Tan
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby Bowen Tan » Sun Aug 09, 2015 9:00 pm

It is valuable to detect the whole genome among various human tumor cells. It also seems like an efficient way to develop gene probes. However, the question is, the development of human tumors depends on many risk factors as well as various metabolic pathways, will gene sequencing solve every problems? In my view, it is just a view from the gene structure. And most of the scientists focus on human tumors. Although it is essential for biologists to work for human beings' health issues, the earth is a place not involving only a human species. In another word, animal tumors, even plant tumors are quite important for us to understand. It contains a natural mechanism to make everything keep balance.

twilliams
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:36 am

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby twilliams » Sun Aug 09, 2015 9:24 pm

Not sure what else I can add that has not been stated by everyone else. Hindsight is 20/20, and we all know by now that the "holy grail" the HGP was made out to be was actually hyperbole. I can certainly imagine that the HGP has given us data that can be useful for further research about predictors of cancer, but as has been said, environmental factors are also critical and genomics isn't going to tell you much about that. What did interest me was the author's suggestion about politicizing the HGP a la the space race, which is a faulty comparison considering the motivations and purposes for those were considerably different. However, this isn't a political philosophy class so I will not digress further about that issue.

euriekim
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:54 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby euriekim » Sun Aug 09, 2015 9:53 pm

I agree with what everybody else has posted. The HGP may be a platform, but it isn't that simple to rid the world of all cancers. Environmental factors are also responsible, not only genomics.

anjames
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:51 am

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby anjames » Mon Aug 10, 2015 7:10 am

Bowen Tan wrote:It is valuable to detect the whole genome among various human tumor cells. It also seems like an efficient way to develop gene probes. However, the question is, the development of human tumors depends on many risk factors as well as various metabolic pathways, will gene sequencing solve every problems? In my view, it is just a view from the gene structure. And most of the scientists focus on human tumors. Although it is essential for biologists to work for human beings' health issues, the earth is a place not involving only a human species. In another word, animal tumors, even plant tumors are quite important for us to understand. It contains a natural mechanism to make everything keep balance.


In an indirect way, I think Dulbecco was hoping if humans could be an ethical experimental subject, other animals or plants would not need to be studied first but could benefit from using similar techniques. A couple goals of cancer research in general are to prevent and treat human cancer and to understand the mechanism of its progression, bettering our lives as a result. When imagining the possibilities, he wasn't considering that at some stage we'd likely still need to test a treatment on animals or to compare to another animal model. It will always be ideal to avoid harming other species further in what sometimes feels like a futile effort to understand ourselves. In order to justify the money and resources going toward these efforts, we can't (yet) always be in it for the sake of knowledge.

ktoporovskaya
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:44 am

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby ktoporovskaya » Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:13 am

The article discusses cancer research where the goal is to find its mechanisms. Cancer cells and oncogenic viruses are used as simple models. Expression of the viral gene, which was picked up by cellular genome, is a method used to study cancer. Scientists were able to identify oncogenes and the proteins. One of the genes immortalizes the cell the other is tumorigenic. Both needed to be expressed to cause tumor growth. Further studies also showed that cellular changes occurring during culture growth determined full transformation into a tumor. Future work should consist of finding whether DNA of advanced cancer is heterogeneous like the phenotype of its cells. Also we should concentrate on cellular genome and find genes important in malignancy of a tumor by sequencing preferably a human genome.

Being that this article was written in 2008 I wondered how much progress we have made since then. Programs like Cancer Driver Discovery still sequences the DNA of a large number of cancer cases to apply a statistical approach and discover recurrent mutated genes in cancer that may drive the oncogenic process. Also Cancer Genome Characterization Initiative supports genomic research to identify novel genomic abnormalities by applying DNA sequencing to characterize changes in tumor and identify normal physical pathways that are being disrupted. And there is an effort by NCI Genomic Data Commons to produce a database with stored information for cancer genomics and initiatives to be broadly available for other researchers.
http://www.cancer.gov/research/areas/genomics

pkshah
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:59 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby pkshah » Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:31 am

I am curious about how progression is the least understood phase in the creation of malignancy. As I understand it, a malignant tumor is one that is cancerous and spreads to the surrounding tissue or another site where the uncontrolled growth causes the destruction of those tissues. If it is a process of growth, how is it difficult to locate, understand, and remove cancerous growth during progression and before malignancy? I understand that you would have to know that you have cancer which is probably the problem considering that it is a silently progressing ailment. However, if it hasn't spread to another cite and created a secondary cancer, why can't surgeons remove the malignant tumor in the same way that they do a benign tumor? Even if there were a secondary cite, why can't surgeons remove the tumor from that cite as well if they know where it is? I am assuming that one reason is that there is a lot of invasive surgery involved and that might be more dangerous than the cancer itself; however, I don't understand why malignant tumors are not removable and benign tumors are.

uwogisele
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:50 am

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby uwogisele » Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:49 am

Dulbecco writes in an urgent "let's do this" kind of tone at the end. And I like what he says; "An effort of this kind (knowledge of genome and availability of probes for any gene) could not be undertaken by any single group: it would have to be a national effort. Its significance would be comparable to that of the effort that led to the conquest of space, and it should be carried out with the same spirit".

I absolutely agree with Dulbecco, the knowledge of genome is truly crucial, and most scientists would agree to that, but there has to be a sense of urgency to learn more about it, because it would be another big step in understanding cancer. Since life is precious to most people, the same eagerness "that led to the conquest of space" should be be the eagerness we should use to learn more about cancer. And this will be effectively and efficiently done by working internationally not nationally only towards a better knowledge of the human genome.

sarahsilverman
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:59 am

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby sarahsilverman » Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:14 am

It is interesting to position cancer as the disease that will be most affected by the sequencing of the human genome. I would have thought that the so called "genetic" disorders (like chromosomal disorders, mendelian recessive disorders) would be better positioned to benefit from this research. There has been for a long time a bias towards cancer as the "worst" disease that our society has to content with, and awareness and fundraising for cancer research surpasses many other diseases. It seems to me that the author feels like curing cancer would be a testament to our scientific and medical advancement, and that it is a goal in itself, aside from the goal of improving the health and prognosis of cancer patients.

kgbaidoo
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:56 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby kgbaidoo » Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:15 am

From reading Dulbecco's article, it was very clear that less emphasis is placed on the need to use humans in the cancer treatment research programs by the government.I know the government and most of the research institutions that fund cancer research programs are very cautious of what the outcomes may be if humans are used, but they have been using mice for a long a time and we yet to find a cure for this dangerous disease.I personally believe that if humans instead of mice are used in the cancer research experiments we would make a much higher progress in finding a cure to cancer in no time.I also think the use of humans in cancer research programs would help scientists to further understand the Progression phase of cancer.

msnelmida
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:41 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby msnelmida » Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:24 am

Cancer is one of those diseases that I think existed in the recent centuries and could be the result through a statistical probability of having a certain disease due to human longer lifespan. It is claimed that about two thirds of the world's population have a chance of being diagnosed with cancer. It is scary situation as cancer appear to be random to anyone and can develop out of nowhere. It is a painful disease as well. I do not know the current status for the effort of curing cancer but I did read before that new techniques are being done that are less painful than radiation therapy such as the use of gold nano particles (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3473940/). I think what Renato Dulbecco referring to his essay regarding the research for curing cancer could not be done by a single group but a national effort will result to a more exponential gain of insight about cancer due to more manpower and with more people involved to such 'conquest' it is possible to reduce conflicts of interests regarding the "cure" between participant groups.

pkshah wrote:I am curious about how progression is the least understood phase in the creation of malignancy. As I understand it, a malignant tumor is one that is cancerous and spreads to the surrounding tissue or another site where the uncontrolled growth causes the destruction of those tissues. If it is a process of growth, how is it difficult to locate, understand, and remove cancerous growth during progression and before malignancy? I understand that you would have to know that you have cancer which is probably the problem considering that it is a silently progressing ailment. However, if it hasn't spread to another cite and created a secondary cancer, why can't surgeons remove the malignant tumor in the same way that they do a benign tumor? Even if there were a secondary cite, why can't surgeons remove the tumor from that cite as well if they know where it is? I am assuming that one reason is that there is a lot of invasive surgery involved and that might be more dangerous than the cancer itself; however, I don't understand why malignant tumors are not removable and benign tumors are.


I think surgeons can successfully remove malignant tumor before it spreads but the key is as you mentioned to be early detection before progression. The problem is that cancerous cells is a "silently progressing ailment". Another problem with malignant tumor is that it also depend on the location it is spreading as some parts of the body or how big the tumor had become cannot be done through physical procedure or by surgery. It is possible it can be removed by early detection before it spreads to the other parts of the body and if the diagnosis shows no evidence of metastasis occurring. Then again if cancer had developed before then there is a high chance it will develop again. As long as we understand it better the more we can predict how it occurs and possibly prevent it from occurring once or occurring again.

nyonan
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:47 am

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby nyonan » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:12 pm

I think, like others have been saying, the author is putting a lot of stock in genome sequencing as being a large step towards curing cancer. That thought is kind of a yes and no. While it will help to have a nice map for everything and knowing how it works, that does not entail that a pathway towards a cure will open with it. We understand the complexity and mechanism of the HIV virus, yet still cannot bridge the gap to a definitive cure. On the other hand, gaining a blueprint to whatever issue you're dealing with is a very solid plan and is indeed a first step towards creating a solution. All in all, it moat likely will help in understanding how cancer works and like most of science, open up a pathway to an answer that was not expected.

dianalee
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:39 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby dianalee » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:39 pm

kgbaidoo wrote:From reading Dulbecco's article, it was very clear that less emphasis is placed on the need to use humans in the cancer treatment research programs by the government.I know the government and most of the research institutions that fund cancer research programs are very cautious of what the outcomes may be if humans are used, but they have been using mice for a long a time and we yet to find a cure for this dangerous disease.I personally believe that if humans instead of mice are used in the cancer research experiments we would make a much higher progress in finding a cure to cancer in no time.I also think the use of humans in cancer research programs would help scientists to further understand the Progression phase of cancer.

I agree with using human in the cancer research would further understand the progression phase of cancer but we don't know all the mechanism on how it progress. Researching on model animals until scientists fully understand the mechanism of each phase and switch onto human would make more sense in my opinion.

SamGarcia25
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:17 am

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby SamGarcia25 » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:44 pm

The author had this excitement in their writing from the mystery of the human genome and how all problems related to cancer seemed to be resolvable once more research would be conducted. Once more is uncovered about the human genome, I think it will be interesting to see whether cancer will be portrayed as something normal in older people now that medicine is helping everyone live longer. It seems as if cancer is inevitable, and a part of the aging process. The probability of getting it may not have changed over decades but our awareness of it certainly has.

Michelle Tarango
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:59 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby Michelle Tarango » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:48 pm

I agree with Delbecco that using humans in cancer research is extremely important to be able to find a sufficient cure. Regardless of how similar mice or other test subjects react to certain treatments, the only way we will truly know how these treatments work on human cancer is to test them on human cancer. Unlike Delbecco, however, I do not believe that sequencing the human genome will be some sort of "magic" cure for cancer, as many cancers also have known environmental causes. I do think the HGP could lead to advances in cancer research, but would ultimately be more helpful in curing diseases that have a strictly genetic basis.

eugenekim
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:59 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby eugenekim » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:55 pm

It's unfortunate that the sequencing of the human genome has not led to the "unlocking" of cancer that scientists were hoping for. However, as a result, we have to consider as others in this forum is stating, whether or not environmental factors do play a role in manipulating with our body in ways that may manipulate cancer more so than perhaps even genes might. Although Dulbecco seems to be optimist in finding some sort of a panacea once we able to map out the entire genome, but that simply just may not be the case, we should consider other factors as well that may be playing a vastly important role.

lemacias
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:04 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby lemacias » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:57 pm

After reading this article, it completely changed my perspective of the future of the HGP. Although the author has several expectations in regards of the project, he truly acknowledge the challenge that this might bring but with an cooperative and hopeful future perspective. If this is what the HGP can bring in cancer research, just imagine how many more things we could do with other type of diseases. It may not be the only step required to cure cancer but like he said: "The new generation can look forward to exciting new tasks... closing the most challenging chapters.." but it is a great achievement for the human kind, to fully understand how we work.

JustinN
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:17 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby JustinN » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:03 pm

The HGP is being used in coordination with new technologies that make it easier to understand the molecular differences between cancerous cells and non cancerous cells. As Dulbecco predicted, we have been able to prepare probes for a wide array of genes and quantitatively measure differing levels of expression in tumor cells. Using the HGP as a map we can see where on the genome unregulated genes are.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v37/n6 ... g1570.html

User avatar
ShawnMiller
Site Admin
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby ShawnMiller » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:08 pm

sarahsilverman wrote:It is interesting to position cancer as the disease that will be most affected by the sequencing of the human genome. I would have thought that the so called "genetic" disorders (like chromosomal disorders, mendelian recessive disorders) would be better positioned to benefit from this research.

Well, Dulbecco was a cancer researcher, so he might not have thought the HGP would most directly benefit cancer research, but he was in a position to see how it could, potentially. And he has a very specific argument as to why he thinks sequencing the genome will help solve the problem he is working on.

tschristoffel
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:37 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby tschristoffel » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:13 pm

I agree that genome sequencing is a potential step in the right direction. However, I am also concerned with the research that will need to take place once sequencing is complete (i.e. identifying relevant genes and how to use them for treatment). I do not know the level of understanding that scientists have at present regarding oncogenes, but I am willing to posit that the mutations that lead to a malignant tumor are many and varied, thus severely complicating the entire research process. I also feel left in the dark regarding how researchers intend to use genomic data to produce a cure that is any more effective than the treatments already available. I have to admit my ignorance on this topic, but I would imagine that the goal is to produce a substance that specifically targets the altered DNA of cancer cells as opposed to non-cancerous cells. I would appreciate it if someone more informed on cancer research could enlighten me.

lgomez
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby lgomez » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:24 pm

As the author mentioned, the HGP had the potential to be instrumental in cancer research, specifically by creating a reference sequence to which abnormalities could be compared. However a few problems pop up. Firstly, knowing the sequence is a shade different from knowing what it does. While the letter combinations may be relatively simple to establish, full annotation of the Human Genome is separate, often done manually. That takes a lot of time. To make matters worse, it has been until recently highly infeasible to target the genome at will. Recombination is a fickle process that only performed with decent enough efficiency at certain loci, severely limiting targets for research (with the advent of the CRISPR-Cas9 system, however, indiscriminate targeting has become much more possible). I do not share the concern surrounding gene identification. So long as you have an idea of what cancer you are attempting to study, it is rather simple to generate a short enough list to commit to investigating. Especially considering that many of these genes are first characterized in simpler organisms and identified as candidates via orthology assessments. In general, oncogenes are characterized by being involved in development and cellular regulation. These systems need to break down in order for unregulated growth (i.e. tumors) to occur.

pattyt
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 12:00 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby pattyt » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:31 pm

Some of Dulbecco's ideas may be a bit naive, but they still bring up a valid point. Some of my peers have said working with human subjects is not an entirely efficient, but I believe otherwise. Studying animal and plant genomes is important and serves is purpose but as someone in class brought up, the effects produced in animal subjects may not produce the same results in humans. It would be more efficient to test the genes of the species which the results are being garnered for. In this sense Dulbecco brings up an important topic. If scientists are trying to solve a problem relevant to g the human population, is it not more productive to study a human subject? The results may be more accurate and could produce a better template. The results for one human subject may different than another's but wording within the same species may yield more results.

User avatar
ShawnMiller
Site Admin
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby ShawnMiller » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:34 pm

tschristoffel wrote:I also feel left in the dark regarding how researchers intend to use genomic data to produce a cure that is any more effective than the treatments already available. I have to admit my ignorance on this topic, but I would imagine that the goal is to produce a substance that specifically targets the altered DNA of cancer cells as opposed to non-cancerous cells. I would appreciate it if someone more informed on cancer research could enlighten me.

This is a good point. Understanding cancer at a molecular level -- if that is possible -- does not entail that we will be able to treat it at the molecular level, or at all. So while we probably have good reason to think greater molecular knowledge will increase the likelihood of finding effective treatments, we can't assume that it definitely will -- a separate argument, or scientific study, is needed to establish that sort of thing, maybe on a case-by-case basis.

jjquintanilla
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:18 am

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby jjquintanilla » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:35 pm

I thought it was rather interesting to see that microbial and cellular biologist are able to use other organism such as viruses to study the dynamics of cancer. On a different note, the article caught my attention when it mentioned how the medical community has little insight to the progressiveness of cancer and its developments, which in the given future, this knowledge of the progression on how cancer develops in humans, may allow us to prevent the full manifestation of cancer in its malignant form. I feel that this article provided a positive inference and outlook because of its basis on the HGP and hence I look forward to the future when such research and studies become realized and utilized in the medical and health fields.

Selestine
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:15 am

Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby Selestine » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:42 pm

When reading this article it really helped me figure out how cancer research is conducted. And at first I thought that human cancer when it was researched humans were used as species. But it looks like, right now that is what they want to do since genetic control of cancer seems to be different in different species.

Nancy Galeno
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:03 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby Nancy Galeno » Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:00 pm

After reading this article, it did open up my mind to different possibilities of HGP and its role in cancer. Although the author does say at the end that it would require a great amount of effort, I feel like she is over optimistic because in describing it she seems to make it sound like it is simple. As one of our classmates said, if it was that easy, wouldn't it have been done already?

msnelmida
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:41 pm

Re: Aug. 10: A Turning Point in Cancer Research (required)

Postby msnelmida » Tue Aug 11, 2015 1:27 pm

Nancy Galeno wrote:After reading this article, it did open up my mind to different possibilities of HGP and its role in cancer. Although the author does say at the end that it would require a great amount of effort, I feel like she is over optimistic because in describing it she seems to make it sound like it is simple. As one of our classmates said, if it was that easy, wouldn't it have been done already?


I think what I am interpreting of the author's remark regarding the HGP is that it will produce results of some sort even if not the main point of doing it is the result but if it at least started it will eventually get easier due to the accumulation of data, techniques, and technological advancements we can get out of it. One day it will be done but as of right now people are just getting closer with some sort of direction or approach.


Return to “Readings”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest