5 ms·

In honor of this I wish people would post links to startups focused on eradicating cancer directly or indirectly. All too often we focus on the few startups doi

In honor of this I wish people would post links to startups focused on eradicating cancer directly or indirectly. All too often we focus on the few startups doing something in a noisy consumer space and miss the hundreds toiling away at some noble goal. If you know of one please post a link so we can learn more about them and hopefully direct help their way.

sjtrny 12y ago
Which cancer?
- coldtea 12y ago
  How about all of them?
  - mpyne 12y ago
    And while we're at it we can eradicate all software and biological viruses, since that would be nice to have too, and about as difficult.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Not sure why you got downvoted, it's a very valid comment. The complexity of 'erasing cancer' is very much mis-understood, even though it is of course a noble goal. The biggest issue I think is that cancer is systemic, given a long enough run the way our bodies do their housekeeping cancer is pretty much a 100% certainty. It's like playing the lottery, if you play long enough one day you'll win, only in this case you lose. By far the larger part of the fatalities in my close circle were due to cancer. And I fear that this will remain with us as a problem for quite a while. Compared to curing cancer curing world hunger seems to be easy (it requires no unknown technology, nor does it go against the way our bodies appear to function).
      - mpyne 12y ago
        > Not sure why you got downvoted, it's a very valid comment. I think in retrospect that my normal dose of snark, even with the point I was trying to make, was probably not appropriate to the topic at hand. If nothing else it might seem flippant, and while I know that's not what I would mean, that doesn't mean people seeing the comment independently would realize that. > The complexity of 'erasing cancer' is very much mis-understood, even though it is of course a noble goal. If I had a do-over that's probably exactly how I would phrase it instead. Saying we should simply cure cancer, as it were always one massive public project away and just needed political will, just demonstrates an immature understanding of cancer research as it stands today. Certainly it's a noble goal, but it's seemingly at odds with how biology works in a body in the long run.
    - NAFV_P 12y ago
      > And while we're at it we can eradicate all software and biological viruses, since that would be nice to have too, and about as difficult. Regarding biological viruses, your comment seems to assume that all viruses are detrimental to life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowpox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowpox
  - exratione 12y ago
    There's the SENS approach, which is radical and based on present knowledge will absolutely prevent all cancer by striking at the one mechanism that all cancer needs. That comes with a hefty side-order of required advances in stem cell medicine in order to keep things going without said mechanism, however: http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research/nuclear-mutations http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research/nucle... The SENS Research Foundation is entirely supported by charitable donations. If you want something a little less radical then helping any group working on targeted cell killing technologies is more useful than what you were probably going to do with that money otherwise - though of course finding a place to donate that will funnel your funds to this particular research is a challenge. The typical cancer charity is about five levels removed from picking research projects, but one can hope that this will change with the spread of crowdfunding techniques into the sciences. Immune therapies are the front runner technology there, but many other approaches exist (nanoparticles, viruses, bacteria, etc). Some of these approaches seem likely to effectively treat many different types of cancer, such as work on CD47: http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2012/03/one-drug-shrink-all-tumors http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2012/03/one-drug-shrink-al...
  - baddox 12y ago
    How about all disease?
  - rbanffy 12y ago
    How about any of them? Even if we do it one disease at a time, it'll be worth it.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- pling 12y ago
  Probably the best comment here and I'm surprised many people missed it. There isn't going to be a cure all for every cancer just like that.
  - dnautics 12y ago
    I used to say that but there are some promising anti-CD47 ideas that might have a chance of knocking out large swaths of tumors. I can also imagine a 'solution' where you biopsy the cancer and look for highly expressed abnormal cell surface markers and use that to target an antibody-directed warhead to the cancer (I'm interested in turning that into a reality sometime in the future, if you'd like to know more contact me, info's in the profile).
    - sjtrny 12y ago
      Cancer doesn't just include tumours though. Leukaemia for example doesn't present itself as a tumour (and there are many types of Leukaemia).
      - dnautics 12y ago
        CD47 is upregulated in leukemia, too. Actually its importance was discovered in leukemia and the generality was discovered in solid tumors later.
baldfat 12y ago
Pediatric Caner (Number one killer of US children ) Research Funding SUCKS - In 2012 88% of peds research grants are denied due to insufficient funding. http://www.stbaldricks.org/blog/post/now-is-the-time-to-conquer-kids-cancer http://www.stbaldricks.org/blog/post/now-is-the-time-to-conq... How about less then 1% from American Cancer Society go to peds Research How about 4% of Federal dollars for cancer research goes to peds cancer research Vast majority of organizations give for the care and expenses BUT NOT to fund peds cancer research. Good organizations: St Baldricks, Children's Cancer Research Foundation, Alex's Lemonade Stand, and other's if they state Research is a certain percentage if not it is pennies to the dollar.
- objclxt 12y ago
  I have seen this argument before: what you're missing is that pediatric cancer, terrible as it is, is far rarer than other cancer types. Pediatric cancer is exceptionally rare. The ACS figures[1] for this year estimate 1,350 childhood cancer deaths out of 585,720 total deaths, or 0.2%. The prime driver for cancer research fund allocation is incidence rate. You are far more likely to develop cancer aged 20-40 than you are aged 0-20. 12% of all women will develop invasive breast cancer at some point in their lives. I am not saying there isn't an argument for increasing pediatric cancer research: the question is whether a disease that has a very low incidence rate should get extra funding at the expense of a disease with a comparatively high one. I don't know the answer, and I don't pretend to. I do think cancer research funding is a very complicated matter, and inevitably one group of people is going to end up angry and upset at the expense of another. [1]: http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2014/index http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerf...
  - baldfat 12y ago
    BUT if you add in the years saved ped cancer equals lung cancer AND peds cancer research has directly helped adult cancer. It is the hardest to fight and once found it would directly help most adult diseases. Now adults get the meds and the research and then 5+ years later they will start a trial IF they can get funding. 20+ years ZERO new chemotherapy drugs introduced to pediatric cancer treatments. We can do better. TO bad the cancer that killed my son has more research spending for dogs then there is for adults and children of bone cancer. Priorities!
kayhi 12y ago
We're working on massively reducing the cost of the scientific chemicals and supplies for cancer researchers. We are up against a couple number of entrenched public companies like Sigma-Aldrich and Thermo Fisher. Couple of examples: Greiner CELLSTAR® serological pipette, 10 mL $27 v. $106.60 http://store.p212121.com/serological-pipettes/ http://store.p212121.com/serological-pipettes/ http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/p7615?lang=en&region=US http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/p7615?lang... TCEP HCl $89 vs. $365 http://store.p212121.com/TCEP-HCl/ http://store.p212121.com/TCEP-HCl/ http://www.piercenet.com/product/tcep-hcl http://www.piercenet.com/product/tcep-hcl
- jacquesm 12y ago
  There is a special place in hell reserved for everybody that applies graft to health-care. And one right next door for 'claims adjusters'.
  - alandarev 12y ago
    A negative side-effect of market economy.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
ilikecoffeealot 12y ago
At Counsyl (counsyl.com) we're working hard to reduce the cost of cancer (and other inheritable disease) screening. We want to make screening fast, reliable, available, and most of all affordable.
afarrell 12y ago
This feels a bit like that time one Dan Weinreb's memorial turned into a networking event, but... Among the MassChallenge startups, the ones targeting cancer specifically are: http://masschallenge.org/startups/2014/profile/3derm http://masschallenge.org/startups/2014/profile/3derm 3Derm takes 3D pictures of skin with an inexpensive handheld imager to help detect skin cancer at the earlier more treatable stages. http://masschallenge.org/startups/2014/profile/oncolinx http://masschallenge.org/startups/2014/profile/oncolinx Oncolinx cancer therapies can target and destroy cancer cells, while sparing healthy tissues—effectively treating the cancer, virtually without any adverse side affects. There are others that are more general than just cancer.

sjtrny 12y ago

Which cancer?

coldtea 12y ago
How about all of them?
- mpyne 12y ago
  And while we're at it we can eradicate all software and biological viruses, since that would be nice to have too, and about as difficult.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Not sure why you got downvoted, it's a very valid comment. The complexity of 'erasing cancer' is very much mis-understood, even though it is of course a noble goal. The biggest issue I think is that cancer is systemic, given a long enough run the way our bodies do their housekeeping cancer is pretty much a 100% certainty. It's like playing the lottery, if you play long enough one day you'll win, only in this case you lose. By far the larger part of the fatalities in my close circle were due to cancer. And I fear that this will remain with us as a problem for quite a while. Compared to curing cancer curing world hunger seems to be easy (it requires no unknown technology, nor does it go against the way our bodies appear to function).
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > Not sure why you got downvoted, it's a very valid comment. I think in retrospect that my normal dose of snark, even with the point I was trying to make, was probably not appropriate to the topic at hand. If nothing else it might seem flippant, and while I know that's not what I would mean, that doesn't mean people seeing the comment independently would realize that. > The complexity of 'erasing cancer' is very much mis-understood, even though it is of course a noble goal. If I had a do-over that's probably exactly how I would phrase it instead. Saying we should simply cure cancer, as it were always one massive public project away and just needed political will, just demonstrates an immature understanding of cancer research as it stands today. Certainly it's a noble goal, but it's seemingly at odds with how biology works in a body in the long run.
  - NAFV_P 12y ago
    > And while we're at it we can eradicate all software and biological viruses, since that would be nice to have too, and about as difficult. Regarding biological viruses, your comment seems to assume that all viruses are detrimental to life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowpox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowpox
- exratione 12y ago
  There's the SENS approach, which is radical and based on present knowledge will absolutely prevent all cancer by striking at the one mechanism that all cancer needs. That comes with a hefty side-order of required advances in stem cell medicine in order to keep things going without said mechanism, however: http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research/nuclear-mutations http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research/nucle... The SENS Research Foundation is entirely supported by charitable donations. If you want something a little less radical then helping any group working on targeted cell killing technologies is more useful than what you were probably going to do with that money otherwise - though of course finding a place to donate that will funnel your funds to this particular research is a challenge. The typical cancer charity is about five levels removed from picking research projects, but one can hope that this will change with the spread of crowdfunding techniques into the sciences. Immune therapies are the front runner technology there, but many other approaches exist (nanoparticles, viruses, bacteria, etc). Some of these approaches seem likely to effectively treat many different types of cancer, such as work on CD47: http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2012/03/one-drug-shrink-all-tumors http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2012/03/one-drug-shrink-al...
- baddox 12y ago
  How about all disease?
- rbanffy 12y ago
  How about any of them? Even if we do it one disease at a time, it'll be worth it.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pling 12y ago
Probably the best comment here and I'm surprised many people missed it. There isn't going to be a cure all for every cancer just like that.
- dnautics 12y ago
  I used to say that but there are some promising anti-CD47 ideas that might have a chance of knocking out large swaths of tumors. I can also imagine a 'solution' where you biopsy the cancer and look for highly expressed abnormal cell surface markers and use that to target an antibody-directed warhead to the cancer (I'm interested in turning that into a reality sometime in the future, if you'd like to know more contact me, info's in the profile).
  - sjtrny 12y ago
    Cancer doesn't just include tumours though. Leukaemia for example doesn't present itself as a tumour (and there are many types of Leukaemia).
    - dnautics 12y ago
      CD47 is upregulated in leukemia, too. Actually its importance was discovered in leukemia and the generality was discovered in solid tumors later.

baldfat 12y ago

Pediatric Caner (Number one killer of US children ) Research Funding SUCKS - In 2012 88% of peds research grants are denied due to insufficient funding. http://www.stbaldricks.org/blog/post/now-is-the-time-to-conquer-kids-cancer http://www.stbaldricks.org/blog/post/now-is-the-time-to-conq... How about less then 1% from American Cancer Society go to peds Research How about 4% of Federal dollars for cancer research goes to peds cancer research Vast majority of organizations give for the care and expenses BUT NOT to fund peds cancer research. Good organizations: St Baldricks, Children's Cancer Research Foundation, Alex's Lemonade Stand, and other's if they state Research is a certain percentage if not it is pennies to the dollar.

objclxt 12y ago
I have seen this argument before: what you're missing is that pediatric cancer, terrible as it is, is far rarer than other cancer types. Pediatric cancer is exceptionally rare. The ACS figures[1] for this year estimate 1,350 childhood cancer deaths out of 585,720 total deaths, or 0.2%. The prime driver for cancer research fund allocation is incidence rate. You are far more likely to develop cancer aged 20-40 than you are aged 0-20. 12% of all women will develop invasive breast cancer at some point in their lives. I am not saying there isn't an argument for increasing pediatric cancer research: the question is whether a disease that has a very low incidence rate should get extra funding at the expense of a disease with a comparatively high one. I don't know the answer, and I don't pretend to. I do think cancer research funding is a very complicated matter, and inevitably one group of people is going to end up angry and upset at the expense of another. [1]: http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2014/index http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerf...
- baldfat 12y ago
  BUT if you add in the years saved ped cancer equals lung cancer AND peds cancer research has directly helped adult cancer. It is the hardest to fight and once found it would directly help most adult diseases. Now adults get the meds and the research and then 5+ years later they will start a trial IF they can get funding. 20+ years ZERO new chemotherapy drugs introduced to pediatric cancer treatments. We can do better. TO bad the cancer that killed my son has more research spending for dogs then there is for adults and children of bone cancer. Priorities!

kayhi 12y ago

We're working on massively reducing the cost of the scientific chemicals and supplies for cancer researchers. We are up against a couple number of entrenched public companies like Sigma-Aldrich and Thermo Fisher. Couple of examples: Greiner CELLSTAR® serological pipette, 10 mL $27 v. $106.60 http://store.p212121.com/serological-pipettes/ http://store.p212121.com/serological-pipettes/ http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/p7615?lang=en&region=US http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/p7615?lang... TCEP HCl $89 vs. $365 http://store.p212121.com/TCEP-HCl/ http://store.p212121.com/TCEP-HCl/ http://www.piercenet.com/product/tcep-hcl http://www.piercenet.com/product/tcep-hcl

jacquesm 12y ago
There is a special place in hell reserved for everybody that applies graft to health-care. And one right next door for 'claims adjusters'.
- alandarev 12y ago
  A negative side-effect of market economy.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

ilikecoffeealot 12y ago

At Counsyl (counsyl.com) we're working hard to reduce the cost of cancer (and other inheritable disease) screening. We want to make screening fast, reliable, available, and most of all affordable.

afarrell 12y ago

This feels a bit like that time one Dan Weinreb's memorial turned into a networking event, but... Among the MassChallenge startups, the ones targeting cancer specifically are: http://masschallenge.org/startups/2014/profile/3derm http://masschallenge.org/startups/2014/profile/3derm 3Derm takes 3D pictures of skin with an inexpensive handheld imager to help detect skin cancer at the earlier more treatable stages. http://masschallenge.org/startups/2014/profile/oncolinx http://masschallenge.org/startups/2014/profile/oncolinx Oncolinx cancer therapies can target and destroy cancer cells, while sparing healthy tissues—effectively treating the cancer, virtually without any adverse side affects. There are others that are more general than just cancer.