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!

Anti-Cancer Agent Stops Metastasis In Its Tracks

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the of-mice-and-men dept.

Medicine 269

Anomalyst writes "Mice were implanted with cancer. The control group died as tumors metastasized. The experimental group was treated with macroketone and survived a normal lifespan. While the cancer was not cured, metastasis was significantly (over 80%) inhibited. Even after metastasis had begun and additional cancers developed, macroketone inhibited subsequent metastasis. The original article is in Nature behind a paywall."

cancel ×

269 comments

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

frist psot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919040)

metastasis is pants

Thanks for the information, Hemingway (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919046)

This post is a thank you for your contribution. It is heartfelt.

Cancer is bad. Implanting cancer into mice is bad for the mice. But it is good for humans.

Because we hate mice.

Re:Thanks for the information, Hemingway (1, Offtopic)

Suiggy (1544213) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919052)

Sugoi monogatari, aniki.

Re:Thanks for the information, Hemingway (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919082)

And a happy "ching chang chong" to you too, honorable sir!

Re:Thanks for the information, Hemingway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919674)

Histoire balaise, frérot.

Re:Thanks for the information, Hemingway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919268)

Sakujo.

Re:Thanks for the information, Hemingway (2, Funny)

leachlife4 (638543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919432)

But why, oh why, would you want to give the most intelligent beings on Earth (mice) cancer?

Re:Thanks for the information, Hemingway (1)

whoey (1775418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919770)

to keep them from trying to take over the world muahhahahahhah

Re:Thanks for the information, Hemingway (1)

grking (965233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919838)

According to TFA this research was part sponsored by the Department of Defence.

Rumours suggest hardened "Warrior Mice" will be deployed in the field sometime in 2012, possibly as ground support for the Reaper drones.

Those of us who don't yet hate mice will learn to hate them when they, along with their Reaper brethren, descend upon us.

Side effects (5, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919050)

Since the side effects don't appear to significantly increase mortality this should obviously be given an immediate fastrack for human trials and should get to Phase III ASAP.

Scent of a lady's underwear... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919168)

There is nothing quite like the scent of a lady's underwear.

mmmmm...

The stink of wet panties.

Re:Side effects (4, Insightful)

Bartab (233395) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919252)

You're dying. Six weeks to live.

What do you care of side effects?

This is the major problem with FDA interference with medicines that can control or cure life-ending diseases.

Re:Side effects (4, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919298)

Yes. Proudly brought to you by the fine people who also say that you can't end your life under the same circumstances.

Since when is your life not yours, but the government's?

You should be able to take a risk on experimental treatment. You should be able to end your own life if it becomes too much.

I had the unpleasant experience of witnessing my grandmother battling for 4 days to finally let her heart stop despite her pacemaker. Before she lost the ability to communicate, she begged the doctors, and I mean begged for them to be able to turn her pacemaker off. Do you know what they said? We're sorry, but turning off your pacemaker would be murder.

So thank you do gooders, thank you so much. Nothing gets me brimming with red bubbling vitriol quite like the fine people who work for the Nanny State that disarm the honest and reasonable with their crap and ineptitude.


end rant.

Re:Side effects (2, Insightful)

Lord Crc (151920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919352)

I had the unpleasant experience of witnessing my grandmother battling for 4 days to finally let her heart stop despite her pacemaker. Before she lost the ability to communicate, she begged the doctors, and I mean begged for them to be able to turn her pacemaker off. Do you know what they said? We're sorry, but turning off your pacemaker would be murder.

I'm sorry to hear. This was something that worried me when my dad's cancer became worse. I was hoping that they wouldn't force him to live for a few more months in pain, however I wasn't sure if they were legally obliged to try to save him or not.

Fortunately, when the time came, it was up to him. After battling pneumonia for a day he indicated that he did not want to receive more oxygen. After the resident doctor was satisfied that he knew the consequences of turning off the oxygen, they did so.

I'm very glad that they allowed him the choice.

Re:Side effects (0, Troll)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919456)

Since when is your life not yours, but the government's?

The medical aspect of your life is the property of whoever is paying for medicine. Since the government is paying for it, the government became the customer. The doctor's job is not to keep you happy, or even healthy, the doctor's job is to keep the government happy.

The worst of it is that, over time, this becomes a reason for prohibition-like policies.

There are 2 ways to do that :
1) avoid any and all risks, and if one screws up, deny everything. After all, if the patient sues, the government employs the defendant, the lawyer, and all possible witnesses (because only doctors get to testify) (and more-or-less the judge. Furthermore judges are more wary of convicting municipalities than convicting individuals, I don't claim this is because of payment, likely just that they're bigger with better lawyers). Only in the case of truly criminal behavior does a doctor run the risk of a conviction. Incompetence doesn't matter because ... patients do not get the choice of doctor (that's more expensive you see), and doctors are very sure of their jobs indeed
2) avoid any and all costs (e.g. they try to get nurses to send someone with a broken leg home with a pain-relief cream first. Only after the patient comes back do they take an x-ray. The worst of it is they claim this "is better for the environment")

Or at least, that's how it's been for decades in Europe. I hope America will be different, but I doubt it. Every year more savings are necessary. Even in the best years of the past century, like 2000-2001, medicine still had to shrink down.

You should be able to take a risk on experimental treatment. You should be able to end your own life if it becomes too much.

Not to nitpick, but euthanasia is asking others to end your life. Everybody who knows a bit of basic medicine knows 10 different ways to end his or her life.

Re:Side effects (3, Insightful)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919872)

Or at least, that's how it's been for decades in Europe.

I hope I never get to visit the Europe you heard of. It's not anything like that in the one I live in.

Re:Side effects (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919498)

Since when is your life not yours, but the government's?

Sparta

Re:Side effects (1)

zarzu (1581721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919918)

You should be able to take a risk on experimental treatment. You should be able to end your own life if it becomes too much.

this is a very problematic topic since if you allow everyone with cancer to initiate experimental treatment, where do you get the people for your studies from? everybody who would try to enter a study these days will then just go straight with the treatment, since it guarantees them that they will in fact get the real one. the possibilities of side effects stay the same so there is essentially no reason for anyone to enter a study. now that you don't have any patients for studies anymore, how are you going to test the treatment properly? how will you control all the factors? you simply can't, we'll just see what seems to be the best treatment, without having any clean data on its effectiveness and side effects.

Re:Side effects (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919398)

This is the major problem with FDA interference with medicines that can control or cure life-ending diseases.

Heh, if only people were not bitching about losing their teeth in a life-saving treatment and asking damages to the company that did not go through the whole FDA process...

Re:Side effects (5, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919404)

I created this miracle cure guaranteed to extend a terminal patients life by a significant amount of time. If you are ever terminally ill, you can look me up and pay me $10,000 for each use of the device. It may take several uses before you see the results. It's still experiments and doesn't always work but it's your only chance to live longer then the couple weeks the doctors told you. The device is revolutionary, it's basically a hair dryer with a bunch of magnets arranged in a specific pattern around the air chamber that blows on your while you ingest aspirin and sugar pills.

If you don't have the money, sell your house, all your worldly possessions, beg your loved ones, but get this experimental life extending treatment.

Can you see why the FDA has some reservations about opening the flood gates on medicines and procedures like that? People will bankrupt themselves trying to stay alive or to keep loved ones alive when someone claims there is a chance. What the FDA generally does is determine if that chance is there and if they would be better off with it. Sure, some experimental treatments and medications should have a fast track, but there should still be some safe checks that stop people like me from making a fortune because you lived two weeks longer over a process that is no more effective then not stepping on a crack to avoid breaking you mothers back.

Re:Side effects (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919752)

Because then you're living with whatever side effects are present. Consider that an unknown side effect in 10% of the population is causing cerebromedullospinal disconnection.

Picture telling a man who was just told he had six weeks to live that he now has a long natural life, but can only move his eyes for the whole duration of it.

There are fates worse than death.

Re:Side effects (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919852)

Being Stephen Hawking is a fate worse than death? Because that's what you just described, pretty much.

Not your call, bro'.

Re:Side effects (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 3 years ago | (#31920072)

You're dying. Six weeks to live.

What do you care of side effects?

This is the major problem with FDA interference with medicines that can control or cure life-ending diseases.

Indeed. But we need some checks and balances. I've had a couple of friends die of horrible, slow cancer - towards the end they'd have done pretty much anything, (either to die quickly or survive, BTW).

People in that state need some protection, even if it only against false hope.

Re:Side effects (1)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 3 years ago | (#31920246)

You're dying. Six weeks to live. What do you care of side effects? This is the major problem with FDA interference with medicines that can control or cure life-ending diseases.

If that were truly the case and you knew of an experimental treatment, you can ask your doctor to prescribe it. FDA would not interfere and would actually be interested in the results if you so wanted to be a guinea pig.

Re:Side effects (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#31920256)

You're dying. Six weeks to live.

What do you care of side effects?

On the other hand, what if someone is given six weeks to live and is given this medication because the FDA decides that a dying person is a good test case, and it cures the cancer but it turns out that one of the side effects is that your legs fall off after 6 months.

Most would argue that it's better to have no legs than no life, but i'm sure that the patient could find a court who will take the case to sue someone over it.

Re:Side effects (3, Insightful)

pookemon (909195) | more than 3 years ago | (#31920344)

Well - when the first side effect is that you (because you are not a mouse) have a 100% chance that you will die in 1 week, you'd probably care.

Sure - it might be the greatest ever discovery in the treatment of cancer - but without proper testing it could be the next Thalidomide, Asbestos, Triple Cheeseburger...

It could also be completely ineffectual in humans and a complete waste of time - which won't be shown without the proper testing.

Nice. (3, Funny)

danhm (762237) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919070)

So does this mean there is no harm in smoking a celebratory cigar?

Mice of the world, rejoice! (3, Funny)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919080)

Thank God! Mice of the world can now sleep easy at night.

Re:Mice of the world, rejoice! (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919350)

Thank God! Mice of the world can now sleep easy at night.

Honestly, this just increases the chances that one of them will live long enough to take over the world.

Re:Mice of the world, rejoice! (4, Funny)

Pastis (145655) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919540)

Welcome to Green Scientific Experiments Ltd.

Thanks to our Mice and Other Animals Recycling -MOAR (TM), we enable laboratories to save thousands of mice around the world, helping them to reuse mice across experiments.

Done with the Infect(*), Let die, Dissect cycle, you can now use the moar efficient cycle: Infect, Cure, Analyze, REpeat ! (I CARE) (**).

Call us today for a discount and get 10 (recycled) mice as gift.

(*) currently MOAR only works against some types of cancers. We're working on a second generation solution allowing to work against other types of laboratory deadly experiments such as virus, radiation exposure, etc.

(**) even if MOAR enables you to reuse mice ad vitam æternam, we advice our clients to not reuse them moar than 10 times due to psychological side effects. To end the I CARE cycle in a green and respectful manner, we work in cooperation with reptilariums across the world to help you fully recycle your mice.

Re:Mice of the world, rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919882)

æternam
 
How did you do that!

Re:Mice of the world, rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31920170)

Maybe he's scandinavian. ;)

Re:Mice of the world, rejoice! (2, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919748)

Thank God! Mice of the world can now sleep easy at night.

Funny, but definitely true. It's easy to cure cancer in mice. Researchers have come up with hundreds of different ways to do it. But while mice are biologically much more similar to humans when compared to say, koala bears, humans are still significantly more complex than mice.

OBLIGATORY CAR ANALOGY: So when something works in mice, its kind of like using carfax - just because carfax doesn't report a problem doesn't mean the car doesn't have major problems, it just means carfax couldn't find any in the limited set of data available to them. Just because the mice don't have a problem doesn't mean the drugs don't have major problems, it just means there weren't any in the limited data-set of mice physiology.

Dear Scientists and Researchers (3, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919096)

I know you need funding, but could you please not sell your research to publishing companies that have paywalls like this? There are open-access peer-reviewed journals for many fields nowadays.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (4, Insightful)

robertc99 (1366201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919132)

You don't sell your research to Nature. You submit it for publication and are overjoyed if they accept it. Nature is the most prestigious publication in the field of biology bar none.
But as far as I know, theres nothing stopping you from putting it up on your web site as well or submitting it in publication in other journals.

So it being published in Nature doesnt stop it from being publically available. Its just that the other copies might be harder to find..

Mod parent up (1)

thrill12 (711899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919174)

... a cousin of mine just submitted and got approved for a article on leukemia research [nature.com] in Nature and I don't think he regrets the fact that is behind a pay wall: it's success.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919144)

Medical research always find funding easily. First of all research hospitals have their own income different from other research areas, second drug companies pour money like water for this kind of researches.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919188)

Nature is the most prestigious publication there is for biology research. Your life goal as a scientist is to get as many nature articles as possible. That is how success is measured, in part. Getting on the COVER of Nature is a once in a life time kind of thing.

The paywall is not a big deal. Just sign in through your institution's library. If you do not belong to an institution you really have no need to read it at all.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919218)

If you do not belong to an institution you really have no need to read it at all.

I really have no need to pay for the research through my Federal taxes, then, if that's your attitude.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919246)

Hit the nail on the head you have, sir.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919248)

Research is less than 2% of the federal budget. Money from the federal government is also only a fraction, although possibly a large one, of the money for research. Money also comes from private sources like charities and industry. You can't complain about this. The government does a lot more secret stuff with a lot more of your money. Seriously, if you want to read it that bad, just go get it from the library. Nature is actually quite commonly distributed in print form.

Or if you really want it that bad, ask the authors for a copy. The graduate students who did this would be happy to give you a copy. You do not have a right to take Nature's copyrighted article without paying for it. You can read the pre-print though.

But yea, you won't be able to understand anything, unless you keep up with the field and have read many of the papers they cite.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919662)

Money from the federal government is also only a fraction, although possibly a large one, of the money for research.

You should be aware that argument doesn't hold water even with the federal government itself.

Look at how often you see restrictions placed on people or institutions which receive even a whiff of government funding. It's a given that even a dollar from the government comes with strings attached.

There was a case a couple of years back where a videographer shot scenes of a riot somewhere in Oakland, California. He actually spent months in jail for contempt because he refused to give up his footage on demand to the FBI. They really wanted it just to document people to watch who had taken part in the riot. Since there was no real federal issue in the riot, the justification thee FBI advanced (and got accepted by the court) for demanding the video was that a cop car had gotten torched and at least a few dollars of the price of the car had been provided by the feds.

So, yes, I do assert that any research funded in any part by my taxes should be available to me at no cost, other than a reasonable cost of distribution. And that cost is minimal, considering that it's all there somewhere on rotating memory.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (1)

samweber (71605) | more than 3 years ago | (#31919992)

And that cost is minimal, considering that it's all there somewhere on rotating memory.

Really?

Okay, the non-profit ACM (acm.org) maintains a digital library of its journal and conference articles. The costs of just maintaining said library is several million dollars a year. Add to that the costs of running each journal and conference.

If all the articles are going to be made available free to readers, that means that these costs will have to be paid by the researchers. Already page charges are quite high -- since there are a lot more readers than writers, this would result it being extremely expensive to have one of your articles published. Do you really want it to be that only rich people could publish research?

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919300)

Don't worry. You're not missing anything unless you've got a BA in biochemistry. The paper isn't light reading material. This [yfrog.com] is the only interesting figure for the general public.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919326)

Have you ever seen a real scientific paper? Can you understand them? The only reason I could understand this is because I have a MS in biochemistry, and am working on a phd. You need a BS in biochemistry to even begin to pretend you understand it.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919380)

If I can't hope to understand it, why is it so important to keep me from downloading and reading it?

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (2, Insightful)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 3 years ago | (#31920294)

Nature is a business and they chose to set it up with a paid subscription model. What's wrong with that? Why do people insist on this communist 'everything should be free for everyone' attitude? If some other journal wants to provide content for free, let them and let them compete. That's what a free business model is all about.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (5, Insightful)

yotto (590067) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919314)

Yes. If you are not doing scientific research why are you trying to read science articles, drone? Get back to work and stop thinking about things.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919396)

ok mr smart guy. I will give you my car if you can explain what this means.

Fascin crystallized in 100mM HEPES pH8.0, 16% PEG4000, 1% propan-2-ol. Both crystals (fascin without or with macroketone) belong to space group C2. X-ray diffraction data were recorded at National Synchrotron Light Source beamlines X6A and X4C at Brookhaven National Laboratory. A partial structure was initially solved by the MR-SAD method with a selenomethionine derivative sample that diffracted to 2.1Å and a fraction of the 1DFC Protein Data Bank (PDB) file

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919466)

Looks like they're describing their study of the molecular structure of something called fascin. It was crystallized for X-ray study in a zwitterionic buffering agent, the details of which are not important to anyone not trying to reproduce this particular measurement. They hammered the crystal with very high energy X-rays emitted by relativistic electrons from a synchrotron in Brookhaven, New York (IIRC). Information about the molecular struture was then obtained through software-based analysis that cross-referenced the diffraction measurements against a standard library of protein molecule geometries, which suggests that fascin is also a protein of some sort.

A full tank of gas would be nice, but not required.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919618)

GP lost his car.

Well, he would have if he didn't post anonymously.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919668)

Well, I cheated and used Wikipedia to look up HEPES, so that's probably a deal-breaker anyway. That one wasn't mentioned in The Andromeda Strain, and I couldn't infer anything from the acronym...

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919698)

ok mr smart guy. I will give you my car if you can explain what this means.

Stuart Little, is that you?

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919206)

Researches don't get paid for publishing, some journals even require them to pay "page charges" to get their work published.
Paywalls aren't an issue because most people will not be able to understand scientific articles of this complexity. Those that would understand it already have access via their university or company. Science is reported to the public in news articles such as the one linked which has the benefit of glossing over the technical details and summarising the findings very well, something that can be extremely difficult to do by reading the paper itself.

The issue for researchers is recognition. The more recognition, the more funding they will be able to get in the future. And the best place to get recognition is high impact factor journals like Nature and Science. Open access journals have nowhere near as much impact factor.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919294)

Paywalls aren't an issue because most people will not be able to understand scientific articles of this complexity. Those that would understand it already have access via their university or company.

We need to quit naming holidays and streets after Martin Luther King, and start naming them after just plain old Martin Luther.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (2, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919386)

To be honest, the CEOs of most scientific publishing corporations need to be dragged out of their office and put up against the wall in the backyard, after expropriating them. Look at this business model:

1) Research gets done by public money.
2) Take page charges from the publicly funded researcher.
3) Let other publicly funded researches peer-review for free.
4) Put content behind paywall, overcharge the publicly funded university hugely on access. Oh, the original researcher mostly has to pay for reprints (digital reprints!) too.
5) Profit!!!!

I think we can safely omit the ??? step here.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (1)

acheron12 (1268924) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919410)

That's why you should support the Federal Research Public Access Act [taxpayeraccess.org]

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919580)

If I were an American, I would, believe me. Good luck with it!

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (1)

Hatman39 (1759474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919844)

Bingo! I think most researchers are too busy with research and grant-finding to really bother...but the whole idea is insane.

Also, most people may not have the resources to do the research, nor the skills, when it comes to biochemistry. However, think of any CS field, or perhaps mathematics, theoretical physics and statistics. All you need to play along is a computer, some programming skills and the drive to read an article and study hard enough to understand it (well, brains help too). Especially in these fields, opening up science may greatly speed up the pace and scope of the science.

Finally, it has nothing to do with being able to understand it, being able to replicate it, or even being able to do anything meaningful with it.
1) The publishers cannot know whether or not I can do anything meanigful with it, I might be a major hobbyist in Biochem, and have a fully equipped lab in my basement....highly unlikely, but they cannot know that. 2) Tax dollars are involved, I want what I paid for.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (1)

acheron12 (1268924) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919908)

arxiv.org [arxiv.org] is where a lot of math (CS, stats, physics, quantitative bio etc.) papers get put up these days. However being uploaded there doesn't guarantee they've undergone peer review, so caveat lector.

Re:Dear Scientists and Researchers (1)

knarf (34928) | more than 3 years ago | (#31919962)

"Scientific publishers" are parasites which have spread like a cancer. A healthy dose of these ketones would be in order to contain this threat. I do a lot of searches for veterinary medicine articles to help solve difficult cases. In most cases those searches end up producing a host of Elsevier/Wiley/etc pages demanding payment to read the article which they hold hostage. What have those publishers done to be allowed to put up this paywall?

The sooner they are removed from the publishing cycle the better it will be for all, except their shareholders for whom I frankly don't give a damn. These self-appointed tax collectors singlehandedly manage to negate the advantage of modern communications technology by putting up an artifical and costly barrier to entry which does nothing for scientific research but everything for their own wallets.

There is no paywall (2, Funny)

wye43 (769759) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919564)

I just clicked the link in the summary and I'm reading the full article right now.

Dear Science Layman (2, Insightful)

ZirbMonkey (999495) | more than 3 years ago | (#31920042)

The purpose of submitting one's research to a publishing company like Nature is peer review. Once a paper is submitted, Nature goes through the task of tracking down other experts in the field. These experts are use their valuable time to analyze, critique, understand, and provide educated proofing that if/when an article is published, the science is verifiable, testable, and valid. Inevitably, many of the papers submitted don't make it past the reviewing process. There's very substantial administrative costs in coordinating all this reviewing as it marches towards being publishable. It ensures every issue contains valid and worthy results that meet high standards. And there's lots of projects fighting for the same ink space.

Then there's the cost of publishing the ink and paper.

Nature can't/doesn't pay for all this cost through ad revenue. Instead, other research institutions buck up to pay a substantial subscription fee to receive the newest results and advances available. Published scientists also receive notoriety in their field, opening up their careers to new projects with more funding. If you wish to read up on the latest issue of Nature or any other science journals, you can easily find them at your nearest university library for free viewing. Universities are happy to pay the subscription fess, since they are running these research programs in an attempt to get their university name in those very same journals.

Too late... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919102)

... to save my father

Re:Too late... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919120)

I can save him. I can turn him back to the good side. I have to try.

Yay.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919142)

...it's a great day to be a mouse!

More info (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919150)

See also http://www.physorg.com/news190482866.html

Citation provided. (1)

ImNotAtWork (1375933) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919180)

Nature 464, 1062-1066 (15 April 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature08978; Received 24 September 2009; Accepted 4 March 2010 Migrastatin analogues target fascin to block tumour metastasis

Full text (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919366)

Text of the article [pastebin.com]

As usual (2, Insightful)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919182)

Wonder drug could save human lives left, right, and center. FDA won't approve it without decades of testing because it's "too risky" to try an experimental drug out on patients who are likely to die anyway. Film at 11.

Seriously, I've seen lectures in medical school by several researchers who ALSO have wonder drugs like this one. They can stick up a diagram showing exactly which molecular pathway it blocks in tumors. They can show Phase I results where 1 in 3 terminal patients in a hospice goes into complete remission from their cancer. Guess what...the drug still cannot be used...

Re:As usual (5, Funny)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919214)

Stop talking like a seditious teabagger. The government only has our best interest at heart and we certainly aren't smart enough to make these kinds of decisions for ourselves.

Re:As usual (3, Informative)

leety (1762478) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919224)

Because science is EBIL. Meanwhile lets make sure every parent can make an "informed choice" between Darwin and "intelligent design". Oh and cigarettes and alcohol, you guys can stay too. But no strange cancer curing drugs. (We've run out of surgeon general health warning stickers)

Why not test outside the USA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919230)

I never understood this. Do the research here, test elsewhere. I'm sure there are MANY countries who would welcome some research dollars.

Re:Why not test outside the USA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919264)

Yeah, i guess, many starving people in developing countries would accept your dirty dollars for dubious experiments.
I assume, once the tests are done, the survivors will be happy with the few hundred dollars. Probably they could even spend the
money on the first 1-2 treatments of cancer for a relative when you sell them the newly developed cure at 10-fold price.
It is morally acceptable to exploit them even more, NO.
You are disgusting.

OK, fine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919330)

Enjoy your cancer, when it comes. You'll be in wracking pain, but I'm sure your morality will be worth the agony, eh Herr Idiot? Secretly you'll be praying for an Angel of Death to free you from your hypocrisy, but it would be poetic justice if you were kept alive by a Moral Majority doctor who believes in life at any cost.

Re:OK, fine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919706)

You dimwit, i would rather fund my own state research that would then provide the cure for a fair price.
If i have no money to pay for the ludicrous price your 'Moral Majority doctors^M^M^M^M^M^M^M^M pharmacy companies' demand, it doesn't make any difference.
I would not 'fund' your well-being with my life at risk for a few dirty dollars, when the price is 10-fold.
You simply wanted to export all the risks while reaping all the benefits.

Re:Why not test outside the USA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919744)

Yeah, i guess, many starving people in developing countries would accept your dirty dollars for dubious experiments.

You sanctimonious dipshit -- give the poster credit for something beyond evil intention.

He doesn't have to be referring to some third-world country as you imply. There is a wide range of regulation in various European countries, at least some of which might well find such testing acceptable.

Re:As usual (4, Insightful)

Jorgandar (450573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919470)

Sorry, you're wrong. I work in FDA compliance so I happen to know a little more about this subject. There are PLENTY of provisions in the CFR (Code Federal Regulations) governing use of experimental or not fully tested drugs on terminally ill patients. Look up "Compassionate Use". A miracle drug that saves 1/3 of hospice patients from cancer would certainly be funded by a biotech/pharma company or the US government. But guess what, drugs cannot under any circumstances go to large-scale populations because if they are untested, you will end up killing more people than you save. In your example, sure the drug may have saved 1/3 of hospice patients, but it very well could have caused the other 2/3 of them to die faster, or suffer a stroke, or whatever. Unless these risks are known, its completely irresponsible for the government to allow it to go into widespread use without a proper clinical trial. There are very valid reasons to the FDAs laws governing drugs. There is no evil boogyman that is trying to prevent miracle drugs from coming to market.

Re:As usual (4, Insightful)

javilon (99157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919732)

drugs cannot under any circumstances go to large-scale populations because if they are untested, you will end up killing more people than you save

This is where you are wrong. You have one fact. The fact that this drugs cures 1/3 of the people taking it in the tests.

You do not have the fact that it kills any one. You just think it could. If we are talking about terminal cancer patients, they should be given it.

Also, even if the drug do kill people, it can be a risk worth taking. Lets say that this drug is tested in a group of people with late stage cancer and an average six months to die. Even if the drug kills 2 out of 3, but it cures 1 out of 3, it is a risk I would take. I would happily accept the risk of an "early" dead if I would get a chance to get cured.

In my mind it is morally wrong for the government to tell me that I can't make an informed decision with the information at hand and take the drug.

Re:As usual (2, Insightful)

zarzu (1581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#31919964)

and how do you compare these uses to a non-treatment? are you just going to allow everybody to take it, not have any control group and do the best with the crippled data you got from that? studies aren't just here for fun, you will have a really hard time explaining to me how you're going to come up with proper data when you simply let everybody take the experimental treatment they want. and once you allow someone to just start experimental treatment who is going to join a study that only gives you a chance of actually receiving said treatment? no one, so you'll end up without studies and people just trying out whatever is out there, which could be anything since there is no approval process.

Re:As usual (1)

javilon (99157) | more than 3 years ago | (#31920020)

If you are a doctor, you should put the well being of your patient before your ability to get clean data.

Re:As usual (1)

Criffer (842645) | more than 3 years ago | (#31920432)

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Getting clean data for evidence-based-medicine is absolutely necessary for the well-being of possibly thousands or millions of potential patients.

Re:As usual (2, Insightful)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 3 years ago | (#31920354)

This is where you are wrong. You have one fact. The fact that this drugs cures 1/3 of the people taking it in the tests.

No, it cured (not "cures") 1/3 of the patients taking it in the tests. The value of the additional studies is to learn whether this will happen in the real world too, and whether the long-term side effects don't outweigh the benefits.

Re:As usual (1, Insightful)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 3 years ago | (#31920292)

This particular drug had no rational evidence for toxicity. It was an old drug candidate for something else back in the 70s, and in high dose testing on animals no lethal level was found. It did cure about 1 in 3 hospice patients during phase I trials. However, because it was for a rare type of cancer that only about 200 people have in the U.S. at any time, it was very difficult to secure the necessary funding for the next phase. As far as I know, my professor is still working on it.

What upset me was obvious : the people this drug is for will die almost 100% of the time within 2-3 years. A 1 in 3 chance of surviving is worth it, especially since even with the limited Phase I data, there were no adverse events detected. Basic math : if 30 or so randomly chosen people don't have adverse events, the rate of adverse events is fairly low within a 95% confidence interval. No further testing is needed : this drug isn't intended for anyone but people with a terminal illness, and there should be a way to put it into immediate use for that.

Re:As usual (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919616)

Actually, 1 in 6. The drugs works on 1 in 3, another 3 get placebo for reliable research results.

Re:As usual (1)

Hatman39 (1759474) | more than 3 years ago | (#31919958)

That's complete BS. When it comes to live saving drugs, trials aren't placebo controlled for, obvious, ethical reasons. How would you like to tell the family that mommy could have lived another 10 years, but instead died in the interest of a stronger experimental procedure?

Re:As usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31920070)

ummmmm, when it comes to research YES THEY ARE FUCKING PLACEBO controlled, patients go into it with the understanding they may receive the placebo and even the doctors administering it are not made aware what each patient is receiving. Patients accept this for the small chance that their life may be extended.

Re:As usual (2, Informative)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#31920310)

Heh, the fact your mind revolts about such outrageous idea is really no reason the reality will conform with the way you believe it should be. Do some research on the subject. Seriously. A very recent scandal in Poland revealed patients being experimented on (with drug-placebo comparison) -without- their consent or knowledge. Some dying from the disease after receiving no medication (only placebo) in cases where alternative, efficient medication exists and should have been administered were it not for high bribes from pharmaceutical companies that got doctors to essentially kill their patients.

Re:As usual (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919764)

Release the formula and process of manufacture to the public under a GPL-like license. If it can't be sold by pharmaceutical companies, it's making no money anyway.

Hell, market it as a plant food. It worked for Methodrone for a while.

reminds me of the family guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919372)

two men in lab coats put lipstick on a rabbit, then one takes out a gun and shoots the rabbit in the kisser. "Now we know that lipstick isn't bulletproof!" "For people!"

dont cure but instead treat (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919406)

"While the cancer was not cured"

yes lets not CURE cancer. Instead lets just treat it with a drug the person has to take over and over and over for the REST OF THERE LIFE.

Oh and of course that drug will be wicked expensive.

Re:dont cure but instead treat (1)

beowulfcluster (603942) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919610)

Treat is better than cure for drug companies but, to be fair, treat is better than dying for patients as well.

Nobody said it'll be the only cure, lemming (2, Informative)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#31920304)

Nobody said it'll be the only cure, lemming. If all else fails, once you pinned those tumours so they don't spread all over, you can just extract them surgically when they start to grow.

But metastases are _the_ major killer in any treatment we've developped so far. Whether it's surgical, radiological, chemotherapy, you name it. You can't irradiate the patient all over, without killing him.

It doesn't help that all those are basically just based on the idea that healthy cells have better DNA repairs than cancer cells, and cells currently dividing (which includes cancerous ones) have their DNA unspooled for copying, so they're more likely to get DNA breaks. So basically they just cause a bunch of DNA breaks everywhere, and hope they got more cancerous cells than healthy ones. It's basically akin to trying to stop a plague by shooting a shotgun into the crowd and hoping that healthy people will have more chances to survive the wounds. No, seriously, that's exactly what it does to your cells. It's a very nasty treatment for anyone who's been through it, and has the side effect of also killing any other cells which are continuously dividing, like those that give you hair or fingernails or sperm.

Being able to stop metastasizing instead of that destructive treatment may actually be a more fun alternative. In the process you shaved less years off your life expectancy than normal treatments do.

But breaking DNA randomly is very carcinogenic in itself, and may cause other cancers down the line. It's very possible to just postpone the inevitable that way. A treatment that at least stops those new cancers from spreading and killing you, may well be a life saver. That's in addition to the conventional treatment, pretty much by definition.

Great! Now, the $64,000 question... (2, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919462)

How much? Cuz for a whole bunch of people like me, every single medical advance means squat.

Link is to a Medical News Today article (1)

WidgetGuy (1233314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31919606)

While the research paper itself may be behind a paywall at the Nature web site, the article to which the post's link takes you (on Medical News Today) is not. It looks like a fairly good description of that research for the layperson.

Get your chemistry right, people! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919822)

Macroketone is not a compound. What they are talking about is _one_special_kind_ of macroketone.

Before you say citation needed, let me provide one:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117913741/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Sheeesh. High-school level chemistry.

doH7l (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31919874)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?