3-D Model of Breast Cancer in the Lab

Roland Piquepaille writes "According to BBC News, U.K. researchers have built a 3-D version of breast cancer in a test tube. Their model contains cells from normal and cancerous breast tissue. The researchers used a collagen gel to form 3-D structures to create structures similar to the ones found in a woman's breast. So far, they focused on a common pre-cancerous condition known as 'ductal carcinoma in situ' (DCIS). With this model, they hope to reduce experiments done on animals such as mice. In fact, these experiments are not always useful because similarities can be poor between mice and humans. Now it remains to be seen if this model will be endorsed by the scientific community."

Oh I see

[suv4x4]

Tests on other mammals weren't close enough. So they decided to test on a bunch of 3D meshes.
That should be close enough to humans.

Sarcasm aside, 3D simulations can help in areas where animal testing can't, but scientist have assumed too many things in the creation of those models. Nature usually surprises in a ways a model can't predict.

The tests done on humans during the World War II in the nazi camps were cruel and inhumane. But no one can reject how useful they were in advancing medicine and providing valuable facts about human anatomy and biology, information used widely even today.

I wonder, could we somehow put the interests of the many before the interests of the one? We're currently eating every day food additives many claim cause cancer. But there's no way to prove it, since causing cancer in test human subjects is illegal.

Just consider: since testing those substances is illegal, thousands upon thousands probably die from cancer eating basically poisonous food we distribute in our food chains.

What about the men?

[keraneuology]

In 2005 the US government spent about $700 million on a disease that affects one women out of eight. That same year the government spent only $390 million on a disease that affects one man out of six.

Re:What about the men?

[XorNand]

Because men are scared-to-death, repulsed, deeply saddened (or some combination of the three) to contimplate the thought of their wives walking around sans breast. I'm not a psychologist, but I would think that the reason that breasts are so objectified sexually is that they are linked to a basic, nurturing comfort deep within our psyche very early in our lives. A woman unable to offer fullfill that role has somehow lost a significant porition of her humanity. Of course, when rationally considered that's utter BS. But not all husbands can fully let go of that fear.

Re:Oh I see

[Andrew Kismet]

I think the simplest way to address the problem of choosing that "one" would be to make it a volunteer/pay system. Obviously, the pay would have to be capped to prevent it leading to exploitation of the poor, but the key idea is that those interested in advancing medicine without the knowledge to advance it themselves can put themselves into a position to help.

I think the most ideal compensation would be flexible - guaranteed insurance cover against negative side-effects! If you come out of it fine with little/no recovery time, a minor compensation. If you become infected or are otherwise temporarily disabled by the procedure, a major compensation (ideally enough to undo the damage).

This way, since no insurer or medical firm is willing to take the cost of something highly likely to be dangerous, no experiments of a notably dangerous variety can be performed. However, those with minor side-effects that are moderately undoable, but still require human testing, will go ahead.

There are flaws in this plan still, obviously benefit fraud from people claiming to be negatively affected when perfectly healthy, and unforeseen risks, and corruption in both the medical profession and insurance companies - but human testing is something that's practically required with such difficult cases. I suspect that these computer models will continue improvement to the point that they can account for at least 9/10 if not 99/100 cases, but like the GP post said, nature tends to surprise...