MIT Team Creates Cancer Stem Cells

MIT scientists and colleagues have found a way in the lab to create large amounts of cancer stem cells, the cells that can initiate tumors. The work, reported in the August 13 issue of Cancer Cell, could be a boon to researchers who study these elusive cells. Labs could easily grow them for use in experiments.

Almost there!

[GrapeSteinbeck (970275)]

Now we just need to to infect the top seven world leaders with it and we'll have a cure. (MAD TV reference)

Re:

[kelzer (83087)]

Now we just need to to infect the top seven world leaders with it and we'll have a cure. (MAD TV reference)

Or just infect the top one world leader. Then we all win whether they find a cure or not. (Just kidding. I don't even want him to suffer like that. Now hemorrhoids, yeah, a real nasty case of hemorrhoids would be good!)

Re:

[Chris Burke (6130)]

Since it sucked less than SNL.

Though lately it's been suffering from the same thing that made SNL unwatchable for years: "the joke the skit is based around is funny for thirty seconds but the skit is seven minutes long" syndrome.

Tag: Bioweapon?

[b0s0z0ku (752509)]

(unlikely though due to the fact that they'd have to be tailored specifically for each victim, otherwise the immune system would destroy them).

Might work as a covert assassination weapon if they can get hold of the mark's DNA and create cell lines.

-b.

Re:Tag: Bioweapon?

[Otter (3800)]

There are already plenty of very effective ways to cause cancer that are a lot easier, cheaper and more easily deliverable.

Re:Tag: Bioweapon?

[pajeromanco (575906)]

There are already plenty of very effective ways to cause cancer that are a lot easier, cheaper and more easily deliverable.

Cigarettes?

Re:

[cayenne8 (626475)]

" There are already plenty of very effective ways to cause cancer that are a lot easier, cheaper and more easily deliverable.

Cigarettes?"

Well, those are more "self-inflicted"....but, they are fun.

:-)

Re:

[b0s0z0ku (752509)]

There are already plenty of very effective ways to cause cancer that are a lot easier, cheaper and more easily deliverable.

... but not 100% reliable or even close to it. Some people just _don't react_ to carcinogens. Or the other hand, introducing tumour tissue that's tailored to their immunities...

-b.

Re:

[Otter (3800)]

I'm talking about laboratory agents, not Tab or pastrami.

Re:

[veganboyjosh (896761)]

I thought Tab only caused cancer in lab animals in California... And don't even get me started on the pastrami.

Re:

[e2d2 (115622)]

Yes Mr President, our assassin has delivered the payload. The target should be dead in .. 5-10 years depending on health care and current insurance plan.

I hope we have ethical researchers

[PresidentEnder (849024)]

The work, reported in the August 13 issue of Cancer Cell, could be a boon to researchers who study these elusive cells. Labs could easily grow them for use in experiments.

Or, you know, give everyone they don't like cancer. Just saying.

Re:

[XxtraLarGe (551297)]

Or, you know, give everyone they don't like cancer. Just saying.

Terrance: Hey Scott, guess what?
[Fart]
[Laughter]
Scott: Uh, I hate you more than ever Terrance and Phillip. I absolutely abhor you both!
Scott is motioning peculiarly at Terrance and Phillip.
Phillip: What are you doing Scott?
Scott: I'm wishing cancer upon you.
Terrance: Cancer!?
Scott: That's right, I'm trying to give you cancer with my mind.
Terrance: Ah, stop that!
Terrance hides behind Phillip.
Phillip: Hey--Don't give ME cancer!

Oh my

[accessdeniednsp (536678)]

"No good will come of this".

I got images of various "Resident Evil" scenes with zombies flooding the Northeast US and ... oh my.

On a serious note, kudos to the lab geeks at MIT! You guys do some fantastic work :)

Re:

[jd (1658)]

Odd. I got the image of a factory putting the tumors into jelly molds and producing politicians, lawyers and civil servants.

Don't give me cancer!

[EvilRyry (1025309)]

Terrance: What are you doing?
Scott: I am wishing cancer upon you.
Phillip: What?
Scott: I am giving you cancer with my mind.
Phillip: No, don't give me cancer!

They gave the stem cells a pack of Marlboros

[postbigbang (761081)]

and look what happened....

Scientists are the real moral crusaders

[HumanSockPuppet (1120535)]

This actually brings up an interesting idea.

I've always been a proponent of the idea that scientists were the true moral crusaders of our age, not protesters, demonstrators, and certainly not religious zealots.

Think of it this way - when scientists have perfected a means for reproducing reliable and testable human cancer cells in a laboratory, there will no longer be any need to use lab rats in cancer research. Cancer will be closer to being cured, and rats will be spared. What has the Animal Liberation Front done on that magnitude, apart from burn medical research facilities?

I imagine that when we are able to create vehicles that produce no pollution, it will be considered excessive and morally repugnant to drive gas guzzlers. I imagine that we have developed a means of engineering meat that it will be considered immoral to kill living animals to get it. The idea here is that immorality is scaled and determined in terms of gross excess of what is necessary for survival, and that our technology makes survival easier (thus altering the scale).

Re:

[Aladrin (926209)]

While I disagree with your statement that "scientists were the true moral crusaders of our age", I find the notion that 'morality depends on science' to be intriguing.

But if that's so, why is it okay to eat meat right now? You can adequately survive on plants and medical supplements right now. Does this not mean that killing animals is wrong already, or does personal comfort/quality of life mean alter morality also?

Personally, I don't find it immoral at all to eat animals, no matter the situation. I will

Re:

[Himring (646324)]

Cancer will be closer to being cured, and rats will be spared.

Which reminds me of that joke:

"Scientists have started using lawyers in experiments instead of rats for two reasons: number one, the scientists don't get as attached to the lawyers and two, there are some things not even a rat will do...."

Re:

[Attila Dimedici (1036002)]

Most human cell lines that are used in the laboratory are already cancer cells. The normal human cell reproduces a set number of times and then dies out. Cancer cells don't do this (that is part of why they cause a problem in the body). In many cases when scientists wanted to study a particular type of cell outside of the body, they would find a likely candidate and attempt to induce it to become cancerous so that they could grow it indefinitely in the lab. With rare exceptions, it is impossible to maintain

Re:

[Pojut (1027544)]

why are we still using rats when there are people sitting on death row?

For the same reasons that those people get their arm swabbed with alcohol before a lethal injection...because we as a race have turned into a bunch of pussies.

I say we restore the Roman Colosseum and throw 'em to the lions.

Re:

[vertinox (846076)]

I say we restore the Roman Colosseum and throw 'em to the lions.

Fine with me as long as we keep up the practice of throwing the Christians in before noon?

Oh maybe, you mean there was a reason they outlawed slavery and gladiator fights other than law and order?

Re:

[Pojut (1027544)]

Fine with me as long as we keep up the practice of throwing the Christians in before noon?

I have a BETTER idea...how about we throw the folks on death row to the CHRISTIANS?

And then we gut out the christians and make giant bongs out of them. Good times will be had by all (except for the christians, of course...)

Re:

[AndyG314 (760442)]

1) Because the number of death row inmates is not nearly sufficent.
2) Because death row inmates are large, violent, difficult to controll and eat a lot, while mice are small, dorcile, easy to controll and don't eat much at all.

Re:

[Ginger Unicorn (952287)]

you're not answering the question

Re:

[CopaceticOpus (965603)]

1) If you are crusading for a cause that is good and moral, it is something to be proud of.

2) None of these details about medical science have much effect on the parent's main points.

3) Just because science can't solve every problem doesn't mean it can't do good. Scientists who worked to defeat polio were doing a good and moral thing. The world is a better place, and many children's lives were saved, because of that work. The fact that the world still contains evil, and that some of the children who were sa

Re:

[CopaceticOpus (965603)]

Yes, for that benchmark we have to look to PETA.

;)

Hey we're science!

[Floritard (1058660)]

"Hey we made cancer airborne and contagious! You're welcome! We're Science. We're all about coulda not shoulda."
- Patton Oswalt - Werewolves & Lollipops

Great, guys. Thanks.

[jwriney (16598)]

Hooray! Try new Instant Cancer! 50% faster than regular cancer. Available at your grocer's dairy case.

Great! Now this won't happen

[DrScotsman (857078)]

Russell Crowe: Well, we couldn't find cancer, but we found a man with cancer. *Punches old man* Take that, cancer! And that! *Punches again*

We've found the cure!

[MajorG17 (676534)]

Eureka! All we have to do to cure cancer is take this machine and reverse the polarity!!!

Kind of ironic....

[slapout (93640)]

...that bringing more cancer cells into the world makes people happy.

Anyone running a pool ...

[benedict (9959)]

Is anyone taking bets on how long before the first report of a critic of Vladimir Putin feeling a pinprick on the subway, followed some months later by cancer and death?

Oh good.

[reverendG (602408)]

And here I was worried it would never happen.

Re:New biological weapon?

[2.7182 (819680)]

It's just you. Just because they made some small technical advance and then ran to the media with it doesn't mean anything. Before this comes out, just wait for the super efficient solar cells, face recognition, robot servants, super nanotube application (fill in here), gene therapy that doens't kill helpless teenagers, fusion on the desktop, and god knows how many other vaportechnologies.

Re:New biological weapon?

[BlueParrot (965239)]

fusion on the desktop

The Oil industry has used desktop-sized fusion devices for prospecting for decades. They are also commonly used as neutron sources for various scientific experiments. Heck, there are even teenagers building their own fusors in the basement. Now if you were talking about fusion devices capable of yielding a net power output at prices competitive with existing energy sources, then that is quite a different thing, but I don't think anybody has ever claimed to have achieved this, not even the cold-fusion crowd...

Re:

[2.7182 (819680)]

I think she meant fusion on the desktop that would be a viable powersource.

Re:

[heinousjay (683506)]

Why am I so certain the Apple iCar would have one pedal, and you'd have to press a modifier button (on the steering wheel?) to use the brake?

Re:New biological weapon?

[DDLKermit007 (911046)]

Has to be tailored to each person. At that it's highly questionable. Otherwise the body will just destroy the cells. Cancer lives by playing the game of cups, and balls with the immune system. When it finds the right way to act like it's part of the body to the immune system it's kind of a bitch to kill off. Easier to just poison someone. Plus this would require a fairly advanced lab. It takes far less, and generates allot more fear mailing an envelope with Anthrax in it to one person.

Re:

[milamber3 (173273)]

Not really, you would need the cells to be immunologically compatible to each person you wanted to infect. That would be harder than a large number of other ways to hurt them. On the other hand, a biological weapon could come from the method they use to turn the cells into cancer stem cells. This generally involves a gene transfer using a virus vector. That kind of virus could be used to create these types of cells inside someone. I don't think large scale virus vector weapons are currently feasible bu

Viruses do this quite nicely.

[PIPBoy3000 (619296)]

HPV [health.gov.au] and other naturally occurring viruses cause cancer quite nicely. Of course, if you want a viral weapon, why not use Ebola which you don't have to wait years to see an effect? I realize mad scientists come in all sorts of colors and flavors, but killing people with cancer seems awfully slow (unless your country has a cure for cancer and others don't).

slow?

[peter303 (12292)]

It might take months or years to kill.

In that sense its a lot like AIDS was before there were any drugs. You knew you had a fatal time bomb in you but didnt quite know when and how.

Re:

[Bastard of Subhumani (827601)]

Then it's nothing to worry about. There's no possible way anybody could get a sample of a slashdotter's DNA.

Oblig simpsons reference

[kypper (446750)]

How do you sleep at night>

On top of a pile of money, with many beautiful women

Re:

[Debello (1030486)]

"Hello, Husband. How was work? I made you a cup of your FAVORITE COFFEE. It's fresh... Now drink up. Drink it ALL... Feel anything? No? You will in a few years."

Re:

[Lord Bitman (95493)]

Wasn't that the plot of Mission Impossible 2?

Re:

[treeves (963993)]

For crying out loud, you're missing important plot points. [jahozafat.com]

There is a difference

[Weaselmancer (533834)]

This seems like a better option.

Well, the difference is that these are cancer stem cells. Cancer seeds, not cancer. From the article:

MIT scientists and colleagues have found a way to create in the lab large amounts of cancer stem cells, or cells that can initiate tumors.

If you could find a way to kill the seeds, then perhaps all the other techniques we are working on to kill the tumors will become irrelevant. Maybe the seeds are easier to kill than the tumors they sprout into. Prevention is the

Re:

[quinspr70c0l (1089355)]

There are multiple advantages of using cancer cells in research. Stem cells are generally hard to come by. Cancerous versions of the cells tend to be tougher and grow much more rapidly enabling cell cultures to be easily shared among scientists. Normal cells tend to stop growing after they reach a certain density and form only a thing layer on a Petri dish. Cancer cells exhibit no such inhibitions. The first mammalian cells that could be cultured indefinitely were the HeLa which were cancerous. http:/ [wikipedia.org]