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!

First Anti-Cancer Nanoparticle Trial On Humans a Success

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the smallest-medicine dept.

Medicine 260

An anonymous reader writes "Nanoparticles have been able to disable cancerous cells in living human bodies for the first time. The results are perfect so far, killing tumors with no side effects whatsoever. Mark Davis, project leader at CalTech, says that 'it sneaks in, evades the immune system, delivers the siRNA, and the disassembled components exit out.' Truly amazing."

cancel ×

260 comments

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

Isn't this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605748)

...how "I am Legend" started?

CmdrTaco's hung like a toddler (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605764)

Maybe they can use stem cells to help Rob Malda's micropenis to grow into an adult-size penis?

Re:CmdrTaco's hung like a toddler (3, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605802)

This is science, not magic.

Re:CmdrTaco's hung like a toddler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606166)

This is science, not magic.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke

Re:Isn't this... (1)

LtGordon (1421725) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605812)

The basis of I Am Legend (the movie) was the modification of a virus to selectively treat cancer. Unless these "nano-bots" learn to replicate themselves, I think we'll be alright.

Re:Isn't this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606136)

Cool story bro. Glad you brought your science to this very intelligent discussion.

Re:Isn't this... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606180)

It also goes to show how a carefully engineered nano-particle can be used to kill people in a rather covert way. CSI probably doesn't yet have a way to detect this stuff.

Re:Isn't this... (5, Funny)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606290)

Of course they do: ENHANCE!

Re:Isn't this... (2, Informative)

Trebawa (1461025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606330)

You'd have to engineer particles that target a specific vital tissue (and stop thinking "brain", because the blood-brain barrier would block that), and then deliver a piece of siRNA that silences an essential gene for that tissue. You'd also have to inject enough of these into the person to have this effect. Still, it could be useful to replace the siRNA entirely with some kind of toxin (it would be nearly undetectable, because it wouldn't linger in the bloodstream).

Re:Isn't this... (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606554)

How long before this technology can be tuned to other types of infected cells like HIV?

From TFA: "The 70-nanometer attack bots—made with two polymers and a protein that attaches to the cancerous cell's surface—carry a piece of RNA called small-interfering RNA (siRNA), which deactivates the production of a protein, starving the malign cell to death."

Seems like once they know how to write the write 'key' for it to attach to a cell wall, the rest should be fairly do-able?

Re:Isn't this... (1)

fregare (923563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606502)

Just shine UV light on it. As I remember on CSI (rarely watch the TUBO) everything is detected with UV.

Finally.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605762)

..the time has come.

Re:Finally.. (5, Funny)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605778)

... to start smoking ....

Re:Finally.. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605822)

Your battery website needs to get with the times, NIMH LSD or nothing.

Re:Finally.. (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606392)

You need to get with the times. Ni-Zn overall hasvoltage much closer to alkaline cells AND higher mAh capacity, and we have nicked the problem of whiskers forming on the anode.

Now we're just waiting for it to be made in AAA size.

Re:Finally.. (4, Funny)

moteyalpha (1228680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605882)

Well I can finally go to California, everything is known to cause cancer in California,
Or "its known to the State of California to cause cancer".
I could never figure it out, so I just stay away from California.

Re:Finally.. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606408)

Well I can finally go to California, everything is known to cause cancer in California, .

Yeah just like working for the ABC [news.com.au] in Australia.

Re:Finally.. (1)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606428)

L O S T

Re:Finally.. (2, Funny)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606446)

...everything is known to cause cancer in California...

Are you saying that this nano thingy will consume the whole state?

damn it... (2, Funny)

alobar72 (974422) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606466)

I quit yesterday :-(

Targetting (2, Interesting)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605786)

How do they direct them into tumor cells?

Re:Targetting (4, Insightful)

alexborges (313924) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605818)

They have RNA that attaches to cancerous and only cancerous cells. Of course, there are types of cancer that wont "bind" with this thingies, but supposedly, if I remeber correctly, they are the rarest.

Re:Targetting (1, Troll)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605934)

That's not targeting, though. It's equivalent to throwing a million square blocks at 999,999 round holes and one square one. You'll hit the target, but not because you were actually aiming at it.

Re:Targetting (4, Informative)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605986)

Incorrect. There are significant physiological and genetic differences between cancerous cells and normal cells. It would be entirely possible to target the RNA sequence to only bind to malignant cells and ignore normal ones.

Re:Targetting (0)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606176)

It would be entirely possible to target the RNA sequence to only bind to malignant cells and ignore normal ones.

You mean like a square peg bouncing off a round hole?

Yes, I'm being pedantic but this is /. after all. Granted, targeting may have a more specific meaning in pharmacology but this is stretching things: rather like GM putting a car on rails then saying it drives itself.

Re:Targetting (5, Informative)

cortesoft (1150075) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606240)

How else would you define targeting in this context other than to mean only binding to cancerous cells? It seems you are implying that targeting can only refer to conscious 'aiming', but that is only a subset of things that can be considered targeted.

Targeted can mean 'select as an object of attention or attack'. That is what they are doing when the design a drug.. selecting cancer cells for attack, and then designing the drug so it will only effect those cells. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_design [wikipedia.org]

Targeted drugs DO mean something specific in pharmacology.

Re:Targetting (0)

d34dluk3 (1659991) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606332)

then designing the drug so it will only effect those cells.

Great post. But please, can we stop using effect as a verb?

Re:Targetting (5, Funny)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606382)

Great post. But please, can we stop using effect as a verb?

No. We only need to effect such a change such that people stop using the verb "to effect" incorrectly.

Re:Targetting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606574)

effective rebuttal?

Re:Targetting (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606390)

Great post. But please, can we stop using effect as a verb?

And how exactly do you expect us to effect this change?

Re:Targetting (0, Redundant)

mutube (981006) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606416)

Great post. But please, can we stop using effect as a verb?

I wonder how difficult it would be to effect such a change.

Who cares? (3, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606438)

Who cares how the particles get inside the cancer cells? Does it matter if we use microscopic needles and inject every single cancer cell or just throw a bunch of square pegs at square holes and hope for the best?

The end result is that the medicine winds up where it should be, and doesn't seem to be accumulating where it shouldn't.

BTW, in the above referenced Nature article [nature.com] it says this:

When the components are mixed together in water, they assemble into particles about 70 nanometres in diameter. The researchers can then administer the nanoparticles into the bloodstream of patients, where the particles circulate until they encounter 'leaky' blood vessels that supply the tumours with blood. The particles then pass through the vessels to the tumour, where they bind to the cell and are then absorbed.

So maybe that counts as targeted. Maybe not. I don't care either way - it works, regardless of semantics.

Re:Targetting (3, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606432)

Incorrect. There are significant physiological and genetic differences between cancerous cells and normal cells. It would be entirely possible to target the RNA sequence to only bind to malignant cells and ignore normal ones.

Yeah but chemotherapy and radiotherapy work the same way. The problem is that the characteristic of cancerous cells they bind to is the fact that they grow fast. The problem is that these treatments also damage normally fast growing tissues. My father in law lost all his bone marrow that way.

I hope that these nanoparticles don't bind to any other crucial tissues.

Re:Targetting (3, Informative)

Edmund Blackadder (559735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606064)

I see your point that this does not seem like the ordinary concept of targeting. But in pharmacology that is exactly what targeting is.

Re:Targetting (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605842)

The same way that so-called "targeted" painkillers work: they don't.

Every time I see that damn Nurofen advert I cringe

In addition, Davis and his colleagues were able to show that the higher the nanoparticle dose administered to the patient, the higher the number of particles found inside the tumor cells—the first example of this kind of dose-dependent response using targeted nanoparticles.

Either I'm missing something really important or this is the biggest 'Well, Duh!' moment I've had this year

Re:Targetting (1)

socceroos (1374367) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605930)

They may be admitting in a round-about way that only a small percentage of the nanoparticles make it to the affected cells - therefore they are saying that by pumping the body full of these nanoparticles can have a higher rate of success in targeting the cells. Big 'duh', but possible admission of low accuracy?

No, I didn't read the article.

Re:Targetting (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606012)

No, I didn't read the article.

You should bro.... they tested the tissue of the attacked melanoma and if you inject more bots, more turn up in the tumor and they kill it.

This thing rocks. Combination therapy will probably mean complete healing of until now absolutely deadly cancers (or I hope so).

Re:Targetting (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606220)

I think the parent missed my point: if you inject x nanoparticles and only x/100 make it to the tumour, how could you be surpised at x/50 appearing there when you inject 2x at the start?

In addition, Davis and his colleagues were able to show that the higher the nanoparticle dose administered to the patient, the higher the number of particles found inside the tumor cells—the first example of this kind of dose-dependent response using targeted nanoparticles.

Why is this the first example of the concentration of nanoparticles showing a correlation with the initial dose? To me it seems obvious that this would happen, so I'm curious as to what normally prevents this.

Re:Targetting (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606404)

...if you inject x nanoparticles and only x/100 make it to the tumour...

So, put the patient under with general anesthetic and inject the nanoparticles directly into the tumors. Still cheaper, lower risk, and more efficient [outpatient] treatment than current cancer treatments.

Re:Targetting (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606058)

BTW, targeted painkillers do not have a funky RNA that attaches to a cell. This babies do.

Re:Targetting (5, Informative)

reverseengineer (580922) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605922)

The nanoparticles have a component that attaches to the transferrin receptor on the surface of a cancer cell. Transferrin receptors are highly abundant on cancer cells because iron (what transferrin carries) is needed for cell division processes. Coincidentally, this is a fact I learned the first time this story was posted a few days ago.

Re:Targetting (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606144)

Do normal cells have the receptors on the surface also? If so, are they distinct from those on tumor cells?

Re:Targetting (2, Interesting)

wisty (1335733) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606300)

I'd guess that normal cells don't have as many, because they don't replicate as fast. But some fast-replicating cells (hair, some blood cells, etc) might have a few. Note, chemo also targets fast-replicating cells, which is why it kills cancer and makes your hair fall out.

So this would be a suped-up chemo treatment, and hopefully a bit more specific.

Re:Targetting (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606454)

So does radiotherapy. The problem being that fast growing tissues are the ones you absolutely need from day to day. Bone marrow and digestive system tissue are other examples.

Re:Targetting (1)

Cheech Wizard (698728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606304)

1. Yes. 2. Yes.

Too small a sample size (0)

Meshach (578918) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605794)

From the real article [nature.com] linked from TFA:

The study describes the science behind a phase I trial assessing the safety of the technique in 15 patients.

I cannot see anything meaningful coming from such a small sample size. It has potential but obviously much more research is needed.

Re:Too small a sample size (4, Informative)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605820)

Well, what's meaningful is that they all didn't up and die, and that a bigger round of testing is to go forward.

Re:Too small a sample size (4, Informative)

Truth is life (1184975) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605828)

The point of the study is to make sure that people don't explode when the procedure is performed, or for something similarly unpleasant to happen--it's a Phase I study, not a real effectiveness trial.

Re:Too small a sample size (5, Insightful)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605858)

Not to mention there are now at least 15 extremely happy people out there :)

Re:Too small a sample size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606280)

Bah, this is the Internet! You're supposed to be cynical and self-congratulating, not humble and optimistic! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

Re:Too small a sample size (1)

electrons_are_brave (1344423) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606460)

I know someone going through chemo/radium therapy for an inoperable cancer with a very poor prognosis at the moment, so the side effects would need to be something as dire as a patient explosion or the nanos breeding, mutating and eating us all alive before this would be rejected.

Then take a statistics class (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605896)

As long as the subjects have the same distribution as the population, this sample can be considered representative of the population. This means that they didn't pick 15 terminal patients and didn't pick 15 100%-survival-rate patients. You can achieve quite a lot when your sample is well selected.

Re:Too small a sample size (5, Insightful)

chowdahhead (1618447) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605974)

It's a phase-I trial, it only confirms safety already established in animal models and kinetics. Phase-II and phase-III trials, much larger in scale, assess efficacy and optimum dosing. That will tell us if this can be more effective than traditional chemotherapy (possible) and monoclonal chemotherapy (much more difficult to predict).

Re:Too small a sample size (5, Informative)

brianleb321 (1331523) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606192)

I cannot see anything meaningful coming from such a small sample size. It has potential but obviously much more research is needed.

You can't just jump from rats to tens of thousands of humans. That's why the sample size is 15. That's why it's a Phase I trial. There are four phases of clinical pharmaceutical testing that follow preclinical (animals, in vitro, etc.) testing. Phase I normally tests a treatment in healthy humans in order to see the negative effects of the treatment (this is not necessarily the case in cancer treatments because all cancer treatments have significant negative effects). Phase I trials are only a couple dozen people, max. Successful Phase I trials allow for Phase II trials. These usually have one or two hundred people with the disease the therapy is intended to treat. In Phase II, they are mainly gathering pharmacokinetic data (half life, metabolism, volume of distribution, etc.). Phase III is where you start to see the trials you're clamoring for. These are typically done in several thousand patients, all with the disease in question. These trials are placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind studies (the hallmark of research). Statistical analysis then allows you to determine if the therapy was effective in improving outcomes. If so, the drug goes to the FDA. 30 days later, it is officially on the market. Phase IV studies begin here, and continue perpetually. They are called post-marketing surveillance, and they study long-term effects (because previous trials are not long enough to do this), as well as very rare adverse effects (where the sample size in previous trials may have been too small to correctly detect the progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy that occurs in 0.1% of patients treated).

So don't claim the study size wasn't big enough - it wasn't supposed to be. Phase III trials are what you want. Phase I and II trials are of no interest to anyone outside of health professions, really.

Re:Too small a sample size (1)

forgot_my_username (1553781) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606314)

It may be a small sample size, but man this is cool stuff.
From TFA, the siRNA can stop any mRNA produced protein.
Eventually, this could be huge for treatments of diseases and conditions associated with mutated proteins.
Before, they had the siRNA, but no real way to deliver them.
So, this is a double wammy!


There is a story with a video about this and siRNA [allvoices.com]

In fairness, I wrote the story, and found the video... but it I think it is very cool.

cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605800)

Now they just need to test it on more cancer patients.

Not just cancer! (5, Informative)

Nihiltres (1161891) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605834)

From comments on TFA, "The Lab" writes: "a science editor would be more capable of pointing out what is really exciting here, which is the ability to stop cells from producing a given protein."

I think the cancer aspect is great (if it works) but this has potential for curing a whole host of diseases.

Now we just need to figure out how to change people's DNA on the fly.

Re:Not just cancer! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605862)

Whoa slow down there. Do you know how long it'll take to patent the treatment for each individual disease?

Re:Not just cancer! (4, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605936)

RNAi is an ancient anti-viral defense mechanism found in everything from plants to humans. That said, I agree. Any disease that is caused by the production of a given protein could in principle be treated using a derivative of this RNAi nanoparticle technology.
 

Now we just need to figure out how to change people's DNA on the fly

Viruses come close to this, it is just a matter of expanding what they can do (eg. enlarging their payload) and reducing the incidence of side effects like severe immune reactions.

Re:Not just cancer! (1)

yabos (719499) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606182)

"Now we just need to figure out how to change people's DNA on the fly."

Apparently all it really takes is a few daily hyposprays to keep the alien DNA at bay and revert your original genome.

Re:Not just cancer! (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606336)

From comments on TFA, "The Lab" writes: "a science editor would be more capable of pointing out what is really exciting here, which is the ability to stop cells from producing a given protein."

I think the cancer aspect is great (if it works) but this has potential for curing a whole host of diseases.

Now we just need to figure out how to change people's DNA on the fly.

Does this mean that we could make the body START to produce a protein? Like... to fix the human dependency of Vitamin C in our diets?

I know I mentioned this one time on slashdot before, but it'd be super cool to fix us to being like every other animal on Earth (except Guinea Pigs) and make our own Vitamin C...

Re:Not just cancer! (1)

Trebawa (1461025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606348)

This has enormous potential. You could target it to pancreatic cells, for example, and knock out a gene that reduces insulin production. The problem is that this technique can't insert new DNA, so it can't repair the damaged genes that cause a lot of genetic disorders.

Coming soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605840)

The World War Zombie. I better get my boomstick ready

Re:Coming soon (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605870)

Nah, what you need is a good wet floor mop, shotguns run out of ammo, chainsaws run out of fuel, but a good mop will keep at least 4 people alive ^_^

Re:Coming soon (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606002)

Very big ^_^.

dead . winter [deadwinter.cc] is an awesome web comic. If you haven't read it, start at the beginning [deadwinter.cc] and you will be surprised how long you keep clicking 'next.' I read well over a hundred before I had to take a break.

Re:Coming soon (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606272)

I had to call in sick for a day ;)

Re:Coming soon (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606522)

Thanks for that....I look at the hordes of people wondering by and hope I don't need a waitress to defend me.

Re:Coming soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606148)

What about an axe??

Pussies (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605852)

I burned my cancer out with a paper clip, my zippo, a linoleum knife, and some good old-fashioned American gusto. What's with all this bullshit medical miracle garbage? The cure for cancer is to not be a pussy.

You lucky, lucky bastard (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606034)

You had a paperclip, a zippo, and a linoleum knife? You lucky bastard. In my day, we had to chew our cancer out with our bare teeth. My testicular cancer was particularly hard to swallow.

Re:You lucky, lucky bastard (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606124)

Try chewing out cancer of the gums sometime, buddy.

Re:You lucky, lucky bastard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606496)

You had cancer? You lucky bastard...

Nice if true (2, Insightful)

nysus (162232) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605866)

Gizmodo? Call me when a reputable publication reports on this.

Re:Nice if true (2, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605906)

Gizmodo? Call me when a reputable publication reports on this.

Does Slashdot count [slashdot.org] ?

Re:Nice if true (5, Informative)

spud603 (832173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605942)

How about Nature [nature.com] ?

Re:Nice if true (4, Funny)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606086)

What, those hippies? I want something Fair and Balanced!

Re:Nice if true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606378)

Faux Noise?

Re:Nice if true (4, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606042)

Gizmodo? Call me when a reputable publication reports on this.

You came to Slashdot because Gizmodo isn't a reputable publication? Hehehe.

Someone call Dr. Imakurusu (2, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605884)

Nanotechnology, huh?

And here I had all my money on the Murai vaccine.

famous last words? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605888)

with no side effects whatsoever

SWEET SUCCESS (2, Interesting)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605902)

Can we now laugh at all that silliness that smoking cigarettes leads to death? I can't wait till Camel gets in on the cancer killin' business.

Re:SWEET SUCCESS (5, Funny)

subanark (937286) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605966)

1. Start smoking, paying $$$ for cigs
2. Get cancer
3. Pay $$$ for an operation to remove cancer cells
4. ???
5. Profit ?!?

Re:SWEET SUCCESS (3, Informative)

NigelTheFrog (1292406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605980)

Too bad this won't do anything for emphysema.

Re:SWEET SUCCESS (4, Funny)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606004)

Camel Lights, now with siRNA Nanoparticles!

Re:SWEET SUCCESS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606410)

Got lung cancer from smoking? No problem. Just smoke these to get rid of it. Oh the irony!

Re:SWEET SUCCESS (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606564)

Now dioxin can be disposed of in the water using siRNA Nanoparticle additives.

Artificial virus (1, Insightful)

zzyzyx (1382375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605952)

So, they made an artificial virus that can deliver an RNA payload without triggering the immune system. I don't see what could go wrong!

Re:Artificial virus (1, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605996)

So, they made an artificial virus...

Fail.

Re:Artificial virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606018)

I can see what could go right: stealthily delivering an array of genetic changes to women to turn them all into beautiful, bisexual nymphomaniacs.

Re:Artificial virus (4, Funny)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606186)

All that will accomplish is to fill the world with beautiful, bisexual nympho women who still aren't interested in you...

Eternal LIfe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606032)

Now how let's reprogram them to repair the body

Phase I Weapon X program

Hooray! (2, Insightful)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606094)

This is so much win, I can hardly stand it. And I never thought I'd see the day when they'd be able to find something to kill this cancer trash. We all live in very interesting times.

Can we get it to target republicans? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606106)

Just wondering....

The good.. and bad? (0, Troll)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606224)

What's so exciting is that virtually any gene can be targeted now. Every protein now is druggable.

<tinfoilhat>
This has potential as an anti GATACA, making people more subservient, less/non violent. What's to stop [controlling body] from slipping in some extra alterations alongside the cancer stopper?
</tinfoilhat>

Re:The good.. and bad? (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606450)

Could come in the water supply along with fluoride you already get. Maybe not in the USA, but some nation on this planet will think it's a good idea.

Politicians get special bottled water to enhance their genome however.

Re:The good.. and bad? (1)

nycguy (892403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606498)

Politicians get special bottled water to enhance their genome however.

Most politicians I know could use some genetic enhancement...

Smoke 'em if you got 'em (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606260)

No cure for cancer? pfft.

This is incredible. I hope this is the cure. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606320)

Its about time we solve the cancer puzzle.

The first? Hardly... (2, Informative)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606558)

Abraxis BioScience [abraxisbio.com] is a fully integrated biotechnology company dedicated to delivering progressive therapeutics and core technologies that offer patients and medical professionals safer and more effective treatments for cancer and other critical illnesses. The Abraxis portfolio includes the world's first and only protein-based nanoparticle chemotherapeutic compound (ABRAXANE) which is based on its proprietary tumor targeting system known as the nab(TM) Technology platform. From the discovery and research phase to development and commercialization, Abraxis BioScience is committed to rapidly enriching the company's pipeline and accelerating the delivery of breakthrough therapies that will transform the lives of the patients who need them.

.

Abraxis has been around for, literally, years.

Load More 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>