7 ms·

Professor at a med school here. Regardless of whether you think the specifics presented in this article (e.g., NSAIDS-esophageal cancer) are right, it’s great

Professor at a med school here. Regardless of whether you think the specifics presented in this article (e.g., NSAIDS-esophageal cancer) are right, it’s great to see this kind of philosophical approach to biomedical research. We need more people like this professor. That she started with a plant and that made her think about humans was a great insight. She rightly recognizes the key role of cell autonomous vs. cell non-autonomous processes in how multicellular organisms work. That she is a woman and someone not at an Ivy League school is also very refreshing to see getting publicized by Harvard. There are so many great scientists aground the world doing great stuff. Let’s keep finding them and reporting on them! Please media, more of these types of stories and less clickbait please! I loved this article. My faith in humanity was restored just a touch here.

Normal_gaussian 9y ago
The irony is, we are very likely to have been baited here. Playing devils advocate: * Started with a plant -> thought about humans. Great insight or actively encouraged progression of research? Research that isn't about humans and their immediate crisis' is less valuable so receives less funding, to try and relate your research to humans is to pursue a primary incentive. Sounds a bit like the ever more fictional founding stories. * Rightly recognising cell autonomous vs non-autonomous processes. I'm not a biologist - but this sounds like something every leading biologist should recognise? * She is a woman. Presumably she didn't do this research alone, so there is an iceberg of people we aren't seeing. Looking back I don't think the Harvard Gazette is starved for things to write about, so there may in fact be selection bias towards women being shown over men - its politically favourable at the moment. * Not from an Ivy-League school being publicised by Harvard. Harvard slaps its name next to other people's research, promoting the superiority of its brand in giving handouts to sub-par institutions. I don't know how to play devils advocate on the philosophical approach; I'm biased - glad to see research in the upper echelons of biological research which considers the stoic approach.
klmr 9y ago
> She rightly recognizes the key role of cell autonomous vs. cell non-autonomous processes in how multicellular organisms work. This is an odd comment: This realisation is quite literally at the core of cancer research, and every researcher in the field recognises this. Heck, it’s implied if not mentioned outright in the seminal Hallmarks of Cancer paper [1] that every cancer researcher (and probably generally most human biologist) has read. Don’t get me wrong: it’s a well-written article explaining the biology to a lay audience. But it doesn’t hold any striking new insights. All of this is not merely known but in fact fundamental knowledge. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer
- iak8god 9y ago
  > Don’t get me wrong: it’s a well-written article explaining the biology to a lay audience. But it doesn’t hold any striking new insights. This "article" in the Harvard Gazette is basically a press release about an invited lecture that happened at Harvard. If it manages to clearly and correctly explain any science, then it's already going above and beyond its main purpose. Edit: * Here is Athena Aktipis' lab site: http://www.aktipislab.org http://www.aktipislab.org * Here is a 2015 NYT article about her work that goes into more detail than this press release: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/science/cellular-cheaters-give-rise-to-cancer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/science/cellular-cheaters... * This is the scientific article: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1673/20140219 http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1673/2014...
- tcj_phx 9y ago
  > But it doesn’t hold any striking new insights. All of this is not merely known but in fact fundamental knowledge. A lot of "fundamental knowledge" in medicine is wrong. The genetic theory of cancer has always been a dead-end, because it reverses cause and effect. The cancer industry has encouraged "kill all the cancer cells" treatments because it's convenient for their business model. The cancer treatment situation is similar to how the use of bloodletting persisted for hundreds of years [0], in spite of the low rates of success. [0] http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/theodoric-of-york/n8661?snl=1 http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/theodoric-of-yo... There's no need for new insights, the old insight needs to be fully developed. Your link has a subsection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer#Deregulated_metabolism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer#Deregu... Warburg's nobel prize was in 1931; we're finally realizing he was probably right all along. (minor edit)
  - epmaybe 9y ago
    Your comment is misleading. Certain cancers are indeed 'caused' by genetic changes, and researchers are actively looking for ways to prevent those genetic changes from occuring in the first place. But do you really tell someone with a familial mutation that we know causes thyroid cancer that they should be on a ketogenic diet? Most therapeutics today are developed knowing that they will not have a substantially more beneficial effect than current therapies. We still develop these because even if they are not better they could reduce adverse events caused by our current best meds. As far as I can tell in the last 80 years the Warburg effect has led PET scanning a viable way to detect the progression of many cancers. To suggest that increased research into the Warburg effect is going to be the thing that leads to an explosion in novel therapeutics for cancer is wishful thinking, as far as I'm concerned. Cancer is complex, and while we could stand to learn more about metabolic changes in cancer, there's not going to be a magic pill for this one.
fastball 9y ago
That she is a woman... publicity from Harvard I'd hate to break this to you, but that's definitely not surprising behavior from Harvard of all places. I mean, we're talking about the same Harvard, right?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
inteleng 9y ago
I find this comment extremely sexist.
- jtbayly 9y ago
  I find this comment to be devoid of reason.

Normal_gaussian 9y ago

The irony is, we are very likely to have been baited here. Playing devils advocate: * Started with a plant -> thought about humans. Great insight or actively encouraged progression of research? Research that isn't about humans and their immediate crisis' is less valuable so receives less funding, to try and relate your research to humans is to pursue a primary incentive. Sounds a bit like the ever more fictional founding stories. * Rightly recognising cell autonomous vs non-autonomous processes. I'm not a biologist - but this sounds like something every leading biologist should recognise? * She is a woman. Presumably she didn't do this research alone, so there is an iceberg of people we aren't seeing. Looking back I don't think the Harvard Gazette is starved for things to write about, so there may in fact be selection bias towards women being shown over men - its politically favourable at the moment. * Not from an Ivy-League school being publicised by Harvard. Harvard slaps its name next to other people's research, promoting the superiority of its brand in giving handouts to sub-par institutions. I don't know how to play devils advocate on the philosophical approach; I'm biased - glad to see research in the upper echelons of biological research which considers the stoic approach.

klmr 9y ago

> She rightly recognizes the key role of cell autonomous vs. cell non-autonomous processes in how multicellular organisms work. This is an odd comment: This realisation is quite literally at the core of cancer research, and every researcher in the field recognises this. Heck, it’s implied if not mentioned outright in the seminal Hallmarks of Cancer paper [1] that every cancer researcher (and probably generally most human biologist) has read. Don’t get me wrong: it’s a well-written article explaining the biology to a lay audience. But it doesn’t hold any striking new insights. All of this is not merely known but in fact fundamental knowledge. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer

iak8god 9y ago
> Don’t get me wrong: it’s a well-written article explaining the biology to a lay audience. But it doesn’t hold any striking new insights. This "article" in the Harvard Gazette is basically a press release about an invited lecture that happened at Harvard. If it manages to clearly and correctly explain any science, then it's already going above and beyond its main purpose. Edit: * Here is Athena Aktipis' lab site: http://www.aktipislab.org http://www.aktipislab.org * Here is a 2015 NYT article about her work that goes into more detail than this press release: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/science/cellular-cheaters-give-rise-to-cancer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/science/cellular-cheaters... * This is the scientific article: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1673/20140219 http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1673/2014...
tcj_phx 9y ago
> But it doesn’t hold any striking new insights. All of this is not merely known but in fact fundamental knowledge. A lot of "fundamental knowledge" in medicine is wrong. The genetic theory of cancer has always been a dead-end, because it reverses cause and effect. The cancer industry has encouraged "kill all the cancer cells" treatments because it's convenient for their business model. The cancer treatment situation is similar to how the use of bloodletting persisted for hundreds of years [0], in spite of the low rates of success. [0] http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/theodoric-of-york/n8661?snl=1 http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/theodoric-of-yo... There's no need for new insights, the old insight needs to be fully developed. Your link has a subsection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer#Deregulated_metabolism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer#Deregu... Warburg's nobel prize was in 1931; we're finally realizing he was probably right all along. (minor edit)
- epmaybe 9y ago
  Your comment is misleading. Certain cancers are indeed 'caused' by genetic changes, and researchers are actively looking for ways to prevent those genetic changes from occuring in the first place. But do you really tell someone with a familial mutation that we know causes thyroid cancer that they should be on a ketogenic diet? Most therapeutics today are developed knowing that they will not have a substantially more beneficial effect than current therapies. We still develop these because even if they are not better they could reduce adverse events caused by our current best meds. As far as I can tell in the last 80 years the Warburg effect has led PET scanning a viable way to detect the progression of many cancers. To suggest that increased research into the Warburg effect is going to be the thing that leads to an explosion in novel therapeutics for cancer is wishful thinking, as far as I'm concerned. Cancer is complex, and while we could stand to learn more about metabolic changes in cancer, there's not going to be a magic pill for this one.

fastball 9y ago

That she is a woman... publicity from Harvard I'd hate to break this to you, but that's definitely not surprising behavior from Harvard of all places. I mean, we're talking about the same Harvard, right?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

inteleng 9y ago

I find this comment extremely sexist.

jtbayly 9y ago
I find this comment to be devoid of reason.