3 ms·

Haven't read the article, but it's bizarre that I _just_ read an article from the same publication (Nautilus) saying just the opposite, basically: "But if all

Haven't read the article, but it's bizarre that I _just_ read an article from the same publication (Nautilus) saying just the opposite, basically: "But if all life, including cancer cells, continues to exploit niches, no solutions from technologists will be final. Cancer cells are not simply a disorder or breakdown in a mechanism, but an organism going on a full-tilt offensive, using multiple, often shifting strategies to produce and use molecular fuel, win resources, and evade the immune system. If so, then the rules of the game may change—these insights suggest that the war on cancer may be endless. Still, we can get better at treating it as an evolving entity within the context on its ecology, through the idea of “living drugs,” such as engineering the body’s own immune cells to sense and mobilize an attack on cancer." http://cancer.nautil.us/article/186/cancer-isnt-a-logic-problem http://cancer.nautil.us/article/186/cancer-isnt-a-logic-prob...

benchaney 10y ago
I'm not at all an expert in this field, but I don't find that argument from Nautilus compelling. Cancer in an individual results from a mutation of a healthy cell. It doesn't get spread from some other person who has cancer. Because of this, there is no mechanism for it to get better at fighting against modern medicine in a global sense. It might improve somewhat within the context of a single person, but this wouldn't pose a long term issue to developing medication that could eventually beat it with a high degree of certainty.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  Some cancers are, in fact, spread from person to person. The HPV virus, for example, is responsible for many instances of cervical cancer - and I'm pretty sure it can cause throat and/or penile cancer as well. Not everyone that gets the virus gets cancer, but it is exceedingly common.
  - benchaney 10y ago
    My understanding is that the virus increases the likelihood of contracting cancer because it suppresses the immune system, which is normally responsible for killing cancer cells. The cancer itself is still the result of a mutation in a healthy cell from the same person who has contracted it.
jamesrcole 10y ago
quoting the article: > "But if all life, including cancer cells, continues to exploit niches, no solutions from technologists will be final. It's plausible that we may eventually have such a good understanding of biological processes, and such powerful technology, that it'll be straightforwards for us to adapt treatments to new exploits. Obviously no one can know for sure if this will or won't be possible, nor, if it will be possible, how far in the future it will be. (Note: just because some technological ability seems really distant from our current capabilities does not make it valid to assume that it could only be something possible really distant in the future. We only need to look at the history of technology to see such assumptions can't be made).
woodandsteel 10y ago
>an organism going on a full-tilt offensive, using multiple, often shifting strategies to produce and use molecular fuel, win resources, and evade the immune system Speculation from a non-expert: maybe what is going on is ancient programs preserved in our dna from before multi-cellular life are getting activated, so the cell is treating the body as its competitive environment.

benchaney 10y ago

I'm not at all an expert in this field, but I don't find that argument from Nautilus compelling. Cancer in an individual results from a mutation of a healthy cell. It doesn't get spread from some other person who has cancer. Because of this, there is no mechanism for it to get better at fighting against modern medicine in a global sense. It might improve somewhat within the context of a single person, but this wouldn't pose a long term issue to developing medication that could eventually beat it with a high degree of certainty.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago
Some cancers are, in fact, spread from person to person. The HPV virus, for example, is responsible for many instances of cervical cancer - and I'm pretty sure it can cause throat and/or penile cancer as well. Not everyone that gets the virus gets cancer, but it is exceedingly common.
- benchaney 10y ago
  My understanding is that the virus increases the likelihood of contracting cancer because it suppresses the immune system, which is normally responsible for killing cancer cells. The cancer itself is still the result of a mutation in a healthy cell from the same person who has contracted it.

jamesrcole 10y ago

quoting the article: > "But if all life, including cancer cells, continues to exploit niches, no solutions from technologists will be final. It's plausible that we may eventually have such a good understanding of biological processes, and such powerful technology, that it'll be straightforwards for us to adapt treatments to new exploits. Obviously no one can know for sure if this will or won't be possible, nor, if it will be possible, how far in the future it will be. (Note: just because some technological ability seems really distant from our current capabilities does not make it valid to assume that it could only be something possible really distant in the future. We only need to look at the history of technology to see such assumptions can't be made).

woodandsteel 10y ago

>an organism going on a full-tilt offensive, using multiple, often shifting strategies to produce and use molecular fuel, win resources, and evade the immune system Speculation from a non-expert: maybe what is going on is ancient programs preserved in our dna from before multi-cellular life are getting activated, so the cell is treating the body as its competitive environment.