2 ms·
>I mean, I guess it would depend on how you are introducing the gene. How many cells it is getting into. It's cancer. You're trivializing the ultimate source o
by beerandt 7y ago
>I mean, I guess it would depend on how you are introducing the gene. How many cells it is getting into.
It's cancer. You're trivializing the ultimate source of the problem. If we could ensure universal targeting of cancer cells, we wouldn't need a technically elaborate method of cellular death, like gene modification.
You might as well suggest solving world hunger by just feeding everyone.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoYou're trivializing the ultimate source of the problem. No, I'm not. But it's occurred to me that I'm imagining this as treatment for Tasmanian devils that already have tumors. Maybe other people are envisioning it as a preventative measure. And maybe that's part of the problem in trying to discuss it.
- beerandt 7y agoIt is by definition a preventative measure. Otherwise, it's no different then any other cancer treatment in that it has the same fundamental weakness working against it: natural selection. If the cells knew when they were supposed to die, then it wouldn't be cancer. If the cure is telling the cells when they're supposed to die, then the cells that don't listen survive, ergo the cancer survives. Which, in the sense of (non-preventitive) treatment, makes it a problem of universal targeting.