Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Prototype Scanner Detects Cancer In Under 1 Hour

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the good-news-is-we-have-your-results-already dept.

Biotech 53

Ian Lamont writes "Researchers at Stanford say they have developed a blood scanner that can search for cancer-associated proteins in a blood sample and returns results in less than an hour. The device looks in a blood sample for cancerous proteins, and attempts to match them up with complementary proteins using chips based on magnetic nanotechnology. One of the researchers says the device could potentially help doctors identify lung cancer, ovarian cancer and pancreatic cancer at an early stage. The device still has to undergo clinical testing and trials before it can win regulatory approval."

cancel ×

53 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

seven of five (578993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994249)

First post detected

yawn (5, Insightful)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994251)

The device still has to undergo clinical testing and trials before it can win regulatory approval."

Meanwhile.... 14 years later...

Re:yawn (5, Informative)

the4thdimension (1151939) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994301)

Indeed. This thing is a LONG way off. By the time they get this out the door to hospitals for use, someone will have an instant test coming out and we should just be fast-tracking that.

I work for a company that makes such devices and clinical trials and testing are not even close to the last step. Clinical trials are the beta test, so to speak, and often mean you have months and months of bug fixing and documentation to do. Take a device intended to diagnose patients, and you can multiple that by years. Fourteen years might seem funny, but its actually somewhat accurate. My company has been working on a product for nine years now seeking US approval.

Re:yawn (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994465)

By the time this thing gets regulatory approval, a young Bones McCoy will be writing his high school paper on primitive medical barbarism of the early 21st century.

Re:yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25994815)

For slow diseases such as cancer (as opposed to plagues that kill you in 14 days), one hour is essentially equivalent to instant.

Re:yawn (1)

glittalogik (837604) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995707)

For someone who thinks they might have cancer and is waiting to find out, on the other hand...

Re:yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25998331)

1 hour is a lot better than far upward of a day [more typically a week to a month] for a biopsy to be excised and then get through the queue to be examined by a pathologist.

Re:yawn (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26000943)

faster is not always better. cancer may be deadly, but it is generally not an emergency, where speed is of the essence. the correct diagnosis is important here and we know nothing about specifity or sensitivity of this method. this will not and cannot replace biopsies and histopathological examination.

Re:yawn (4, Insightful)

Invicta{HOG} (38763) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995051)

I agree - studies like this are quite common in the medical literature and, while exciting to think about, have a long way to go before they find their way into the clinic. For instance, this chip is looking for many different kinds of proteins. Each protein will have a specific false positive and false negative rate of detection. Because the chip has so many proteins it looks for, the total false positive/negative rate for cancer detection of the chip will have to be determined and, likewise, a decision made as to whether this is an acceptable rate for clinical practice. For instance, it might do well for each individual cancer/protein, but when you are looking for so many different cancers, you might find that an unacceptably high number of chips return an answer of "CANCER." Since this might necessitate costly evaluations with their own inherent risks, you will need to insure before this comes to market that the results are clinically relevant and have an acceptable positive/negative predictive value.

Re:yawn (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26011315)

Can I sign something somewhere that says "I waive my right to sue and here is a wad of cash, I want the advantages of your tech now"?

Re:yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25994519)

"Meanwhile.... 14 years later..."

Better then snake oil medicine and gadgets that don't work while costing a fortune.

Re:yawn (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994797)

Fourteen years, and probably tens of thousands of deaths.

-jcr

Re:yawn (4, Interesting)

Invicta{HOG} (38763) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995687)

There is no guarantee that this will save lives. That's what studies are for. You are confusing cancer detection (or in this case cancer related protein detection) with cancer therapy.

Take two examples now available to detect cancer/cancer related proteins. The first, prostate specific antigen (PSA) is elevated in most cases of prostate cancer. This simple blood test was recommended for all men above a certain age to screen for cancer. However, it does its job too well. It finds cancer in so many men that people started wondering whether finding all of this cancer is a good thing. A lot of men are old enough (and prostate cancer grows slowly enough) that they would certainly have died from other causes without ever having a single symptom of prostate cancer. Additionally, the number of biopsies done to find early cancer (or to find that there was no cancer after all!) combined with the amount of morbidity from current modalities of prostate cancer therapy have led many organizations to conclude that screening for prostate cancer does more harm than good.

A second example comes from the detection of thyroid cancer. Above a certain age, a simple thyroid ultrasound has a fairly good chance of detecting a thyroid nodule. There's a fairly good chance that this nodule will be cancer. However, the risk from dying from this thyroid cancer end up being very low - low enough that the risks from detecting and treating it are higher than the risks of just leaving it be.

When this has been proven to save lives or improve the quality of life of people with asymptomatic cancer, I will join you in criticizing an admittedly slow and often overly burdensome system. But at this point you can't criticize when the device is so far from proven.

Re:yawn (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25998861)

You are confusing cancer detection (or in this case cancer related protein detection) with cancer therapy.

I'm doing nothing of the kind. I'm taking note of the fact that the earlier a cancer is detected, the better the chances of survival.

But at this point you can't criticize when the device is so far from proven

The hell I can't. The FDA kills people every day.

-jcr

Life's a bitch, and then you die (1)

LrdDimwit (1133419) | more than 5 years ago | (#26006179)

Cars kill people every day. Do you drive? When you drive, do you speed? (You are aware the speed limits were introduced because of statistics showing reduced accident rates, yes?) People make life-and-death decisions all the time based around the fact that some must die so that others might live. They simply choose to try to ignore it as much as possible. With no easy transportation, quality of life would be much poorer. People would die sooner. People would die because they didn't get to the doctor in time. No matter what happens, you cannot make that go away.

Sure, people will die because treatments get delayed for testing. It's easy to say, with the benefit of hindsight, "we could have saved so many more if we'd just started treatment right away". But the FDA was created because the treatments were killing people too, and nobody had any idea what was safe and what wasn't. Remember the clinical trial that almost killed 3 people when the immunoreactive drug they were administered proved to be nigh-fatal? Supposing they had decided to skip the initial is-this-toxic-in-humans test and proceeded directly to large-scale trials?

Re:Life's a bitch, and then you die (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26010285)

Cars kill people every day.

Thank goodness you're here, ridiculous analogy man!

People make life-and-death decisions all the time based around the fact that some must die so that others might live.

In a free country, people make those decisions for themselves, rather than requiring the permission of a bureaucrat to avail themselves of medical help.

-jcr

Re:yawn (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008909)

If You think the FDA kills people, try not having an FDA.

Re:yawn (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25999699)

There is no guarantee that this will save lives. That's what studies are for. You are confusing cancer detection (or in this case cancer related protein detection) with cancer therapy.

Take two examples now available to detect cancer/cancer related proteins. The first, prostate specific antigen (PSA) is elevated in most cases of prostate cancer. This simple blood test was recommended for all men above a certain age to screen for cancer. However, it does its job too well. It finds cancer in so many men that people started wondering whether finding all of this cancer is a good thing. A lot of men are old enough (and prostate cancer grows slowly enough) that they would certainly have died from other causes without ever having a single symptom of prostate cancer. Additionally, the number of biopsies done to find early cancer (or to find that there was no cancer after all!) combined with the amount of morbidity from current modalities of prostate cancer therapy have led many organizations to conclude that screening for prostate cancer does more harm than good.

A second example comes from the detection of thyroid cancer. Above a certain age, a simple thyroid ultrasound has a fairly good chance of detecting a thyroid nodule. There's a fairly good chance that this nodule will be cancer. However, the risk from dying from this thyroid cancer end up being very low - low enough that the risks from detecting and treating it are higher than the risks of just leaving it be.

When this has been proven to save lives or improve the quality of life of people with asymptomatic cancer, I will join you in criticizing an admittedly slow and often overly burdensome system. But at this point you can't criticize when the device is so far from proven.

But all that doesn't mean we shouldn't go looking for problems (as long as the diagnostic is innocuous in and of itself).

If many cases of Prostate cancer do not result in fatalities due to the disease, we simply need to perform more research to define better criteria for when it is necessary to provide treatment following detection.

(Also, for your two examples against, there are dozens of other cancers that can be cured with an extremely high success rate if caught early, but are virtually guaranteed to be fatal if left until later on.)

Re:yawn (1)

Invicta{HOG} (38763) | more than 5 years ago | (#26002709)

Yes, but the human body is generally in an equilibrium with many different cancers. Rogue cells develop and are killed by our immune system. It is not known whether treating cancer at the 1-10 cell level is necessary or will save lives - we've simply never been able to detect it that early. What would you recommend - chemo and radiation? It's quite dangerous to assume that cancer detected in this way is the same as cancer detected in the traditional way or that the possible over-treatment of cancer that would otherwise be handled by the natural immune system will end up saving lives. There are risks to cancer treatment just as there are risks to failing to detect cancer at an early stage. These studies MUST be performed before something like this is released for general use. The FDA "kills" people by championing the scientific method which ends up "saving" far more people from dangerous therapies.

Re:yawn (1)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003821)

Your argument befuddles me.

Are you arguing that if we have an indication that there might be cancer present, we may decide it is best not to attempt treatment, therefore it is best not to look for it in the first place?

Are you claiming that it would be better to get that colonoscopy instead of giving a blood sample?

It is your contention that women are better being fired up with X-rays to look for breast cancer instead of giving a blood sample?

And what if the device gives a false positive? Does that mean the doc should break out the chainsaw and go looking for the culprit, or does it mean that they might use a more traditional detection technique? (We got a positive. NOW we'll shove a probe up your anus!)

The tests for a device like this are simple. Take blood samples from healthy and cancerous patients. Run a few thousand through the detector. Keep count. If the numbers look useful, the FDA needs to get the hell out of the way.

Just because you have a rifle doesn't mean you can't carry a pistol. And having either doesn't mean you need to kill anything.

Re:yawn (1)

Invicta{HOG} (38763) | more than 5 years ago | (#26006397)

Are you arguing that if we have an indication that there might be cancer present, we may decide it is best not to attempt treatment, therefore it is best not to look for it in the first place?

Not only am I arguing this, I am telling you that this kind of practice is actually already standard of care in some instances.

Imagine a device so sensitive for cancer that it detects a single cancerous cell. Imagine that 99 times out of a hundred this cell is killed by the immune system and never causes a more systemic problem. Now, imagine that the treatment for this kind of cancer is a chemotherapeutic agent with a 2% chance of death/disability. Would you feel that identifying the cancer was worthwhile if the treatment caused more problems than the disease? Remember, first do no harm.

This simply needs to be studied and the outcomes need to be known. And I have said nothing about comparing this technology to the current gold standards of mammography, colonoscopy, etc. But that would need to be done in order to establish a new gold standard.

It is important to remember that many cancer proteins have already been identified, are readily available for simple blood testing, and have been rejected for screening because their false positive/negative rates are too high and they have been proven not to affect outcomes at all. This may be more of the same - but we don't know until we do the science.

Understand that I think technology similar to this is the future of cancer detection. In fact, cancer proteins are already being used in clinical trials (and in every day practice) to guide rational chemotherapy decisions. I just don't share the same apparent disdain for the regulatory arm of the FDA.

Re:yawn (1)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 5 years ago | (#26007799)

It's not just a disdain for the FDA. It is a disdain for all paternalistic government that would deem to know what is best for me.

A test such as this may not tell you that you need pieces cut out of your body, but if it does reliably detect the proper proteins it can let me know that I don't need a camera shoved up my hind end.

Yes, it needs to be studied, but 14 years to approve a non-invasive, screening test is ridiculous. The efficacy of the technique for identifying the proteins can be shown in a matter of weeks. Just run a battery of tests with blood samples from known test subjects. Either it works, or it doesn't. If it shows everyone positive for cancer, then it would be a market failure to begin with. The FDA is redundant in this case. If it cuts the number of irradiated breasts and sore rectums then it will lower the cost of healthcare, and again the FDA adds nothing.

Cancer Joke (3, Funny)

amclay (1356377) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994417)

Doctor: Well, we better discuss treatment now for your testicular cancer. I recommend hormone therapy. Man: Are there any side-effects? Doctor: A few. You will have a loss of potency. You might get some hot flashes. And when lost, you will have an inexplicable urge to ask for directions. http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/HumorRVYjokes.html [phoenix5.org]

Re:Cancer Joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25994459)

Doctor: I have good news and bad news.

Patient: Bad news first please.

Doctor: You have cancer.

Patient: And the good news?

Doctor: You also have Alzheimer's so you can forget all about the cancer.

Usefulness? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994495)

Any doctors here?

Isn't this only useful if the cancer is already developed to the point where it is spilling cancer cells into your blood?

I don't see this being useful for detecting breast, brain, foot or butt tumors?

Re:Usefulness? (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994575)

the device is detecting proteins associated with cancer, not the cancer cells themselves.

Re:Usefulness? (4, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994605)

Well, according to the summary the scanner is looking for protiens that are produced by cancerous cells, not the cells themselves. And even if it were the case that it could only detect the cancer cells in the blood, it would still have it's uses. If it could be made cheap enough, it could become a standard test, everytime you visit the doctor. It would still allow us to catch cancer cases earlier than they would have been otherwise even if we couldn't rely on it to detect 100% of all cancer cases.

Re:Usefulness? (2, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25998657)

It would still allow us to catch cancer cases earlier than they would have been otherwise even if we couldn't rely on it to detect 100% of all cancer cases.

Careful what you ask for, you might get it. A large number of cancers, perhaps the majority of them, are 'cured' by the immune system at very early stages. Even some Breast Cancers seen on mammograms will involute. (A Google search is in order if you're curious). If you are not very careful to understand the biology of the cancer in question you will end up creating a) a lot of angst on the patient's part b) a lot of angst on the doctor's part c) extra costs for what amount to unnecessary tests d) the real possibility that those tests might HARM the patient rather than help.

Other cancers grow so slowly that detection of small numbers of cells very early on will create enormous clinical controversies - how do you treat a $_random_cancer that is seen only in a micro array test given that standard therapy for clinically apparent $_random_cancer might include radiation, surgery or a host of chemicals that would give even Saddam Hussein the willies?

These will be interesting lab devices, but I don't see picking one up in your local Lucky Dragon [technovelgy.com] anytime soon.

Re:Usefulness? (3, Funny)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994619)

I don't see this being useful for detecting breast... tumors

That's what hands are for. (Preferrably my hands)

Re:Usefulness? (3, Insightful)

Walpurgiss (723989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995645)

While that may seem like fun, I bet it would be pretty awful when you do find cancer.

Usefulness? (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994633)

Isn't this only useful if the cancer is already developed to the point where it is spilling cancer cells into your blood?

IANAD but afaik, first the cancer cell must release itself from its primary tumor, and make its way through the walls of the blood vessel. Even once in the blood, it's thought that of many thousands and thousands of cancer cells that make their way through the unlikely trip into the bloodstream, only one or two will probably form a metastasis.

Re:Usefulness? (4, Insightful)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995143)

The key to the gap in your understanding is that cancer proteins can be found in the blood with out there being any cancer cells that have actually metastasized to the blood. When any cells replicate proteins slip in to the blood for various reasons. Looking at presence and the relative increase of these proteins is the focus for early detection of cancers.

tNOX (tumor-associated NADH oxidase) is a protein some research [healthvideo.com] was looking at.

serum amyloid A elevates for lung cancer [dukehealth.org]

Doctors in india found a protein to indicate the precursor to colon cancer [upi.com]

early detection of ovarian cancer [ynhh.org] based on four proteins: leptin, prolactin, osteopontin and insulin-like growth factor-II.

All this research is from the last couple years, so it appears that measuring the correlation of these proteins with cancer has been an area of hot research.

Bah, I had that beat years ago! (3, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994635)

Not only did I invent a device which would correctly diagnose cancer 99.999% of the time, not only did it work in only half an hour, it also didn't involve any of this expensive magnetic nanotechnology la-dee-dah. Plus the device was so ridiculously simple anybody could use it, which you'll see once I describe the device itself.

Basically it's a big box, kinda like a front-loading washing machine. In front of the box is the scanning aperture. On top of the box is a single button labeled "Detect Cancer". You stand in front of the scanning aperture, and you hit the button. Over the next half hour, the box scans you with very high levels of x-rays. Once the scanning was done the only other feature on the top of the box, a green LED with a label that says "Cancer Detected", would light up.

You see, so simple a child could use it! I should know, too, because I had some try it out. But those bastards at the FDA brushed me off, even threatening me if I continued performing clinical trials! Even after I showed them it had the same accuracy detecting radiation burns and radiation sickness! But what do you expect from bureaucrats? More concerned with their "rules" and "regulations" than helping people. I wouldn't be surprised if this new one gets a pass because being hard to build and complicated to use they can regulate the hell out of it, even if it is inferior. :(

wrong kind of dog (4, Interesting)

slew (2918) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994969)

You can use your Deterministic Oncological Generating box ;^)

or perhaps take advantage of another type of dog...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0112_060112_dog_cancer.html [nationalgeographic.com]

Apparently this more common type of dog can be trained to smell certain types of existing cancer (instead of deteriministically generating them) ;^)

Re:Bah, I had that beat years ago! (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995809)

Har. It wouldn't be that hard to define a technical test for non invasive scanners. If they aren't emitting dangerous types of EM, why not let doctors play with them (if the doctor feels like it)?

Re:Bah, I had that beat years ago! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26010195)

What is the resolution of your detection platform? Anyone can detect cancer if it is big enough, the goal in using nanotechnology for cancer detection is that it is capable of detecting cancer before any imaging based technologies....earlier detection leads to better outcomes.

One hour compared to what? (2, Insightful)

Unknown Relic (544714) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994737)

How does this compare to traditional tests? One hour is great and all, but how long to today's tests take to return results?

Re:One hour compared to what? (2, Funny)

RingDev (879105) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994919)

No idea, but if it means I don't need the doc to stick a finger up my bumm, I'm all for it!

-Rick

Re:One hour compared to what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25995411)

most docs dont NEED to, they just like to.....

Re:One hour compared to what? (4, Informative)

Invicta{HOG} (38763) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995487)

This technology is not currently available in the marketplace. There are blood tests that look for tumor markers such as PSA, CEA, CA19-9, etc. and they generally are sent to a large reference laboratory for analysis. This can take up to a week. Traditionally cancer is diagnosed pathologically by looking at a tissue sample underneath a microscope. Aside from the obvious need to undergo a biopsy, this can often be done quickly (pathologist standing in the OR, the surgeon hands the sample over, they read it then and there). However, the hour time frame is not the real story here - it's the ability to combine all of this screening in the first place.

The story is not the time frame... (1)

shalla (642644) | more than 5 years ago | (#26002543)

However, the hour time frame is not the real story here - it's the ability to combine all of this screening in the first place.

Having lost a grandmother, aunt, and coworker to ovarian cancer, I have a slightly different perspective on this. Ovarian cancer is just extremely difficult to accurately discover in time to treat effectively. There are tests that can be done to test for it, but the rate of false positives and negatives really negate their usefulness. Usually by the time the cancer is discovered, it is in too late of a stage and a woman's chances for survival are not very good.

I will be interested to see how accurate the results of this scanner's test are. If it enables more reliable early detection of ovarian cancer, we're possibly talking the ability to give thousands of women a fighting chance.

So combining the ability to test for multiple cancers is nice, but if it's merely an accurate test for something that so far has been virtually undetectable until it's too late, that's good enough for me.

I'm aware that this is years down the road, but since right now the best they can do is say, "Well, you were on birth control pills for a number of years. That's a plus... I suppose we can run this test, but it gives a lot of bad results. Want that?" I think it's an excellent development.

Re:The story is not the time frame... (1)

Invicta{HOG} (38763) | more than 5 years ago | (#26006173)

You are right - the ability to test for ovarian cancer is a big story here (if this works). That was more my intention with my reply. The ability to do this in the first place is more important than the ability to do it so quickly. I should have been more careful with my wording.

Re:The story is not the time frame... (1)

shalla (642644) | more than 5 years ago | (#26006259)

Aha. I read you as the scanning for multiple cancers at once being beneficial (which it definitely would be). Either way, we're agreed all around that how long it takes is less important than what it can offer in other areas. ;)

Cheers!

Re:One hour compared to what? (3, Insightful)

jandoedel (1149947) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995519)

Well, since it tests the blood of the patient, and doesn't need to scan patient per patient, that probably means that you can put a lot of blood samples together in one big pot, and then test that mixture (and do this a couple of times, to reduce the error margin, but that can be done at the same time.) If your batch is cancer free, you have just tested X people in one hour. If not, then you split the batch in two, and test both batches to know which of them contains the cancerous blood. Continue a couple of times until you found the patient. Testing 256 people at the same time takes 1 test if everyone is healty, or 8 tests if one has cancer. (or a bit more if more than one person has cancer) So that means that the average time per person can be very low. As opposed to PET scans, MRI, CT, SPECT,.. where you can only cram one (or two if you squeeze) person in the machine at the same time. If a PET scan takes 15 minutes, then you can only scan 4 people per hour with one machine.

Detects your cancer in 1 hour (1)

new death barbie (240326) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994739)

...or it's free?

Re:Detects your cancer in 1 hour (1)

jmikelittle (1246304) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996037)

*only applicable in the US Everywhere else it's already free

Throws Its Hat into the BioMedical Industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25994749)

This technology brought to you by Lenscrafters.

(smokes bong hit) hwat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25994753)

The article points to PNAS (proceeding of national academy of sciences) ... but ... there's no article there.

Dude says he can detect cancer in blood but other dudes been saying that for years [google.com] .
Often this research is wrong or utterly useless. It might be good advertising for a startup (which this appears to be) and may get some venture cap; but there's a new "we have an early cancer test" claim every few months.

So far all we have is a business journalist talking up a start up. When it's reproduced independently, then we can get excited.

About an hour, you say? (1)

illegalcortex (1007791) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994907)

Great news. I need new glasses and it would be nice not to have to make a separate trip.

Hell, I could do that (1)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995149)

1. Build a detector that causes cancer in under thirty minutes.
2. ???
3. Profit!!

I am such a slashdot addict... (1)

simaolation (1381125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995371)

I'm reading this article in the middle of my MCB132: Cancer Biology class at Berkeley. Looks like Stanford is getting another bio Nobel prize....oh well, Cal pwns them in Chemistry and Physics prizes.

I wouldn't say it's that far off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25995807)

This isn't just some professor making an interesting invention and then having it sit on the shelves forever. It's coming out of the Stanford Genome Technology Center. That place is a factory for startups. They run it much more like a company than an academic lab, and as soon as they get something they like, they know how to develop it and sell it. Every now and then, I think back and wonder what would have happened if I had joined that group knowing now that academia isn't suited for me.

Cool stuff... (1)

Raven737 (1084619) | more than 5 years ago | (#25999761)

As far as i understood detecting very slight amounts of a
particular protein also has many other uses besides
detection of cancer proteins in a clinical environment.

The whole thing already looks like a ready to use device
in the picture [thestandard.com] so i think it's pretty close
to actual applications, even if it's not approved for clinical use.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>