Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Fighting Cancer With The Common Cold? 376

Posted by simoniker from the osmosis-jones dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "After 30 years of work, Saint Louis University researchers have genetically engineered a common cold virus to fight cancerous cells while leaving unaffected healthy ones. They received a patent for this research and clinical tests on humans will start soon, according to this news release. Dr. William Wold, chair of the department of molecular microbiology and immunology, received the patent No. 6,627,190 for his work. Preclinical testing has already been done so clinical trials should start soon. We can only hope they will be successful. This overview contains many more details and references about this potential cure for all kinds of cancer. [Note: this is a very different project from the one mentioned by a previous Slashdot post.]"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fighting Cancer With The Common Cold? More

Fighting Cancer With The Common Cold?

Comments Filter:

  • Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by Grave ( 8234 ) <awalbert88.hotmail@com> on Thursday December 18, 2003 @01:37AM (#7751857)
    They can cure cancer but they can't cure the common cold?!

    • Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)

      by loknor ( 583729 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @01:43AM (#7751881) Journal
      Cancer will often cure the common cold. =D

    • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

      by Justin205 ( 662116 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @01:43AM (#7751883) Homepage
      They can cure cancer but they can't cure the common cold?!

      No, no, no. They could if they tried, but they need the common cold to cure the cancer. What do you want? A cold, or cancer?
    • The key is to make sure tha they dont accidently put this cold into next year's flu vaccine. All their effort gone to waste because they couldnt catch the cold.

    • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @02:00AM (#7751968)
      It's a question of priorities...before cancer or the common cold could be cured we first had to concentrate biomedical effort on making a pill that gives old farts a rock hard meatpipe. Now that that's out of the way, we can concentrate on curing viral infections, hereditary diseases, cancer, etc.

      • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)

        by SEE ( 7681 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @04:27AM (#7752424) Homepage
        Priorities?

        Viagra was designed and developed in a research effort that was originally looking for anti-hypertension drugs, and was later refocused on anti-angina drugs. While the stage II clinical trial showed it was not as effective as hoped, it did discover a curious side effect. The priority was not to create an impotency drug; that was a foruitous side effect of what was otherwise seven years of wasted research and funding.

        • Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)

          by electroniceric ( 468976 )

          that was a foruitous side effect of what was otherwise seven years of wasted research and funding.


          Well-done research is never "wasted", because you always learn something. It may not be what you wanted to know, and it may not be immediately applicable, but it adds to people's knowledge, which makes it useful.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @01:42AM (#7751870)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:hmm (Score:4, Interesting)

      by sosume ( 680416 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:28AM (#7752771) Journal
      When you are trying to fight cancer with an adenovirus, like a particularly nasty common cold, you get a mutated adenovirus that seems to copy itself only in cells that lack a functioning copy of a gene called p53 that repairs damaged or mutated DNA. If the DNA is then too smashed up to be repaired, p53 instructs the cell to self-destruct.

      Since cancer occurs when DNA becomes so badly battered that it stops regulating cell growth and behavior, it is not surprising p53 has stopped working in more than half of human tumors..

      • Re:hmm (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ZorinLynx ( 31751 )
        What if the virus mutates into a form that starts attacking all cells, then this virus gets loose?

        Genetically engineering viruses sounds like a very dangerous task to me, especially if you make mistakes. We definitely don't need a worldwide "super-virus" epidemic that leaves half the population dead.

  • Must be Microsoft (Score:4, Funny)

    by xintegerx ( 557455 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @01:42AM (#7751871) Homepage
    "have genetically engineered a common cold virus"

    Only a Microsoft Flu lab could make the claim that they genetically engineered a common cold virus, and all in the same sentence. It must be really hard to genetically engineer out of nothing, something... very... common.. Hmm.

  • I thoroughly hope this succeeds for the good f man kind. Any chance that this research will help with cold remedies ?
    • I hope it succeeds too. As a geneticly engineered virus that gets released into the general population, we will all probably end up with some of it in our system within a decade or so of its release.

      So, if it is a failure, we might all end up hating life.

      • Re:I thoroughly hope this succeeds (Score:4, Insightful)

        by boaworm ( 180781 ) <boaworm@gmail.com> on Thursday December 18, 2003 @05:51AM (#7752652) Homepage Journal
        we will all probably end up with some of it in our system within a decade or so

        Hopefully that would not be the case. I dont think the general idea is to let people go around infecting each other with this thing. That would be _very_ dangerous.

        Its like releasing a kernel patch that "insert the following four lines somewhere in the kernel". You really should do some version checking before doing so...And also look into where the code is inserted

        Patching the human DNA is not something you want to do just like that. Things are very likely to go out of hand due to the complexity of regulatory pathways. Viruses are extremely compact DNA users, often allowing multiple reads of the same code to produce different enzymes/proteins. And since we dont know what other body functions we are affecting, things are likely to go astray.

        • Virus DNA change (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Firethorn ( 177587 )
          It's not a retrovirus. It doesn't actually alter the DNA of the host cell (like AIDS does). What it does is injects it's DNA to hijack the cell's functions and resources to produce more virus. This eventually kills the cell and releases the virus, resulting in a kind of targeted attack on the tumor (more tumor cells lead to more virus in that area).
    • I haven't read the article yet, but I don't think this will help with finding a cure for the common cold. I'm guessing that they found a string of codons that will work with the p53 protein or MapK system and inserted this string into a cold (which I think is a virus) and use it as a vector. but this is off the top of my head and might not be 100% correct, so if someone could correct me if i'm wrong, i would appreciate it.
  • "have genetically engineered a common cold virus"

    Only a Linux zealot would make the claim that they genetically engineered something... when it's a replication of an already known common virus. And, just like the common cold, this common virus (at 97%) is just as likely to have infected your electronic hard drives, too.

    • Re:Must be Linux (Score:2, Informative)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      Only a Linux zealot would make the claim that they genetically engineered something... when it's a replication of an already known common virus.

      For the record, researchers didn't make the virus from scratch; rather, they took a cold virus and made it fight cancer. The "engineering" refers to the changes made to the virus to make it target cancer.

  • I'm conflicted again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BiggerIsBetter ( 682164 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @01:45AM (#7751895)
    It's great that this is possible, but I'm not sure it should be patented. What ever happened to research for the good of mankind, and academic recognition?

    I know medical research is expensive and all, and inventors/researchers need protection from having their ideas stolen, but what it means is that the technology can be held to ransom by the patent holder. "Yes we can save you, but it'll cost you $5000 a week for the rest of your life, etc."

    • Re:I'm conflicted again (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pvt_medic ( 715692 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @01:52AM (#7751934)
      Yeah but then the cheap sollution will be just everyone has a big party once one of them has caught the flu and they all catch the communicable disease. It be very easy for (unless they put safeguards into place) for this to sweep across the nation... and no more cancer. Well i guess that is an idealistic view of things.
      • My first thought as well. Or a "friendship cold": "give this letter and a big sloppy kiss to 5 of your friends...".

        Unfortunately, if the virus only thrives in the tumors you probably won't be very contagious
        even if you have the right type of cancer, and
        not at all if you don't.
      • Sneeze you Cancer away. Treat one person for $150,000,000 and let him heal humanity. (Until the virus mutates again and could do something much worse)
    • Well... having it patented means that researchers in countries that don't respect US patents (or other patents in countries it's been filed in), will have a nice place to start in reproducing the cure.
    • What ever happened to research for the good of mankind, and academic recognition?

      Reality.

  • Helping the world benefit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zoeblade ( 600058 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @01:48AM (#7751906) Homepage

    Y'know, if I was smart enough to work out how to help people fight cancer, the last thing on my mind would be how to patent the technique. I'd want to help as many people as possible.

    • If you don't patent it, some other bozo will. Then, instead of being able to help people, you get tied up in patent litigation to prove that you invented it first, and that it should be given away for free. Much easier to just patent it, so you OWN it, and once you OWN it, you can then declare that it is free for the world.

    • Re:Helping the world benefit (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Motherfucking Shit ( 636021 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @07:13AM (#7752898) Journal
      Y'know, if I was smart enough to work out how to help people fight cancer, the last thing on my mind would be how to patent the technique. I'd want to help as many people as possible.
      But before you could help a single patient, you'd be flat broke, unable to help anyone, and someone else will have patented your idea. And if you kept trying to help people anyway, that someone else would be suing your pants off to prevent you from doing so. (Hmm, I just started one sentence with "But," and the following with "And," someone alert the Grammar Nazi.)

      Keep in mind that patents are not always used as tools of extortion. You can patent something and then give away licenses if you so choose. As much as I hate the apparent incompetence of the current US patent system, I'd much rather see this patent go to the guy who actually did the research - whether he tries to make millions or not - than see it go to some bloodsucking "Intellecutal Property Firm" whose business model is profiteering on the backs of others' innovation, research, work, and investments.
      • Patents don't go to the first person to apply for one, they go to the first person to actually invent the idea. In theory, at least, if the inventor doesn't file a patent, then nobody else can either.

        That isn't to say that some big, evil company couldn't patent it anyway, and have it granted because the patent office doesn't check enough, but as soon as that happened, the inventor could sue. Even though he's the little guy, I'm sure plenty of people would be contributing to his legal fund if his claim was
    • Sure, helping people is good--- but do you think Thomas Edison invented the light bulb because he wanted to help people? Nope- he wanted to get rich. I think both are possible. In fact, its the pursuit of personal interests that have caused the greatest advanced in society.

      Proving once again that greed is good....
  • Great idea! Lets's inject people with functional bacterial antibiotic resistance genes...

    When I did Genetic engineering back in the '80s we used antibiotic resistance genes as markers to show which organisms had taken up the gene we wanted to transfer - and antibiotic resistant bacteria are becoming a bit of an "issue" these days.

    Could this be in some way related?

  • A major source of cancer in the USA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mr. Ophidian Jones ( 653797 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @01:49AM (#7751910)
    Two words: Nuclear waste.

    Two words: Lung Cancer.

    That is the alternative, and pollution from traditional power generation plants is killing people every day, and sickening many more.

    There is not a single permanent disposal site world-wide. no one can guarantee the safety. the U.S. government even has a website on _just this problem_. Ready-made dirty bombs are driven in trucks all over the country. GREAT IDEA.

    If someone wants to kill a lot of civilians, all they need is a garage lab to produce chemical or bio agents. Much more effective, much easier to deal with, even more scary (1 gram of the right bio agent could kill millions). See the recent research on mouse pox [i-sis.org.uk] for some really scary stuff (did that story make /.?). How 'bout a bio agent that'll only wipe out one ethnic group? The research is just about there. It is always hard to evaluate relative risk, but to me nuke power is way down the list.

    BTW, as far as nuke disposal, there's a good reason for a lunar colony... =) Name another major energy source where the pollution could realistically be taken entirely off-planet.

    Also BTW, I hope some of the recent solar energy developments lead (finally) to competitive photovoltaic power generation on a distributed basis (that'll tick off the power companies!). One of the more exciting developments is solar fabric [si.edu], which can be used in curved building designs.

    • Re:A major source of off-topic in the USA (Score:4, Interesting)

      by momerath2003 ( 606823 ) * on Thursday December 18, 2003 @02:05AM (#7751987) Journal
      Two words: Off Topic.

      Maybe one hyphenated word.

      Seriously, though, moving nuclear waste off-planet is idiotic. The cost to get it into space is beyond prohibitive, and the chances of it being on a rocket that explodes on liftoff and spreads the waste everywhere is infinitely greater than the chances of terrestrial waste disposal causing harm.

      The best nuclear waste plan is to reprocess it for nuclides helpful to industry and medicine and for nuclear fuel and then to convert it to borosilicate glass, which is very highly stable, and bury it in Yucca Mountain.

      And solar anything is way to inefficient for any normal energy generation (remote locations excepted, perhaps).

      But then again, the comment may be a troll, so I shall say no more.

      • Solar production is not "inefficient" (Score:4, Interesting)

        by konmaskisin ( 213498 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @09:58AM (#7753915) Journal
        ... you have to take usage patterns into consideration. For running my watch solar is very efficient (better than producing batteries, distributing them and asking cosumers to change them when their 20$ watch dies).

        The problem with energy in the North is not production but extra-ordinarily high consumption. Energy is too cheap (artificially so) and everything about our enviroment reflects that: badly designed cities and buildings and major sunk investments we have to deal with for 100's of years are the result ... I hope crises in California and elsewhere (one is coming in Ontario Canada) will lead to some new efficiencies in *consumption*.

        If the Spanish moors produced wonderful energy efficient homes that needed no air-conditioning.

  • Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sevensharpnine ( 231974 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @01:50AM (#7751921)
    All of the news thus far looks to come right off of the press release put out by the pharmaceutical company funding the initial front. I have no doubt this is wonderful information for the relevant shareholders/venture capitalists.

    But what about his work leading up to this? I don't read the microbiology journals (not that I would understand them), but I'll bet someone around here does. Is anything relevant to this project peer-reviewed? Have any of his methods been reproduced? Is there anything published relating to this project?

    I don't want to sound too skeptical here, but this could be a seriously exciting discovery if 25% of the PR release were to be realized. But until I see some proof (and not a patent award, thanks), I'm going to assume this "scientific discovery" is another turkey-intestines into fuel story.

    • Adding two and two (Score:5, Informative)

      by kimmop ( 121096 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @02:55AM (#7752156) Homepage
      Altough this is a good achivement it's no scientific breakthrough. If you're interested please read the description section from the patent [uspto.gov] It's quite well written and understandable.

      There's few things you have to know about viruses and cancer to understand this thing:

      First: The viruses (adenoviruses to be specific) work by infecting the host (human) cell and by forcing the host to replicate the viral DNA and to produce the proteins coded in the DNA. After few days of this, a lot of new viruses form inside the host cell and the cell gets broken up (lysed) relasing a lot of new viruses to infect the nearby cells.

      Second: Cancer is uncontrolled replication of cells. Actually quite many genes must be deactivated (like p53) and activated (like telomerase) to produce a bad type (neoplastic) tumor. The telomerase is needed in the cancer cells because it extends the ends of the chromosomes in the cell after each replication, thus allowing a cell to replicate more.

      Prior art: Some people have taken the promoter (DNA sequence that activates a gene) from human telomerase and put it in an adenovirus (that was mutated to be non-replicating) together with cell-suicide inducing gene. By infecting a cancer cell with this virus, you can kill it nicely if the cell expresses telomerase (i.e. is replicated i.e. is a cancer cell)

      The problem with the prior art is that producing non-replicating viruses is difficult and expensive and you have to infect all of the cells more or less individually.

      Invention: Use the telomerase promoter to drive a gene required for the DNA replication in the virus. This way the virus will kill (by lysis) the cancer cells and infect the other cells nearby but will not lyse the healthy (telomerase-deactive) cells.

      Even though this is not a major scientific breakthrough I still hope this works and think it's clearly worth a patent.

  • new trend in medicine (Score:2, Interesting)

    by btharris ( 597924 )
    the targets of new medicines are becoming increasingly more discriminating. they are able to pick and choose very specific targets with new drugs/treatments, such as a specific type of cell, tissue, etc.

    this article reminded me of the bacteriophages [wired.com] mentioned in Wired a month or two ago.

    it's another example of utilizing existing biology to do our dirty work for us, rather than inventing some new "super drug" from scratch. fight biology with biology, it's much more efficient. sometimes older tech wo

    • AFAIK bacteriophages are fantastic and Soviet Russia used them to great effect. but they never took off in the west because of prejudice and the fact that the last thing capitalist pharmaceutical companies want are "cures" - "treatments" are much more profitable, as are the likes of viagra.

  • Natural Selection of Cancer Cells (Score:3, Informative)

    by TheSync ( 5291 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @01:54AM (#7751943) Journal
    I think the biggest problem is that cancer undergoes natural selection rapidly, which is why it is so hard to fight. Since cancerous cells have a great deal of genetic mutation, populations of cancer cells can "evolve" to thwart treatments. Targetting almost any individual protein in cancer is bound to fail.

    • Re:Natural Selection of Cancer Cells (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What moron modded this as Informative? You wait 'til I Metamoderate! lol. The poster clearly doesn't understand what cancer is. (No offense to the poster, you're just confusing cancer with other diseases which do adapt)

      Cancer does not "evolve." It is the natural mutation of our own cells. Nearly everyone over the age of 70 has some form of cancer -- just not often the deadly kind. (benign moles, colon polyps, etc. etc. are common)

      Because of flaws in cell division due to age, exposure to radiation

    • This is just so wrong, I don't know where to begin. A cancer colony may get started due to a point mutation in a particular cell, but there is NO reason to think that the subsequent rate of mutation is high, or that that there is much natural selection going on within the population of cancer cells - they are unlikely to be specially genetically diverse - unless it is some rare mutation in the DNA replication machinery, in which case they are likely to be diverse.... and dead.
    • Wow, that's a totally ignorant statement. I'm not even going to get into how you think cancer can evolve.. it's just not possible. Read some of the other posts.

      As for treatment, almost all cancer research right now (especially that use viruses) attempt to target the very nature of cancer: uncontrolled cell growth. There are some very key protein pathways (conserved through almost every species we've bothered to look for them in) that are very related to this growth regulation. For example, p53 is a bi

  • Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)

    by teutonic_leech ( 596265 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @01:54AM (#7751946)
    I did not RTFA, but from similar excerpts on the subject matter it is clear that they engineered the virus to only infect cancerous cells. The virus might be attracted to the increased level of telomerase that is being produced by cancer cells. Telomerase is used to replenish the expended telomeres on the end of the shoelaces-like DNA helixes. From what I know RNA attaches itself to the telomeres and starts recreating what it reads off. However, the place where it attaches itself does not get fully read, and therefore not re-created. Thus, the new molecule has a shorter telomere (the shiny end part on your shoelace). Now, when the end of the telomere is reached, the cell knows that it's time to commit senesence (suicide). Some guy called Hayflick figured that out in the 50's and that's why they call it the 'Hayflick limit', which is somewhere around 50 replications per cell (aka mitosis).
    The problem is that cancer cells produce a lot more telomerase, which replenish their telomeres, so those suckers just won't die. If I would engineer a virus, I'd have it be attracted to that.
    Anyway, just my 2 cents, maybe someone who really knows this stuff can elaborate on my layman explanation of this.

    • Re:Makes sense (Score:2, Informative)

      by mattjb0010 ( 724744 )
      Senesence refers to cells that are no longer dividing but still metabolically active. Programmed cell death is apoptosis (from the Greek for falling leaves or something like that), "uncontrolled" cell death is necrosis. Telomerase (a protein with RNA) is a part of what cancer is about, but there are other things like genetic instability, lack of programmed cell death in general, increased replication rate, angiogenesis, etc.

    • Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Informative)

      by pikayou ( 654094 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @02:13AM (#7752018)
      I think it's unlikely that the recombinant adenovirus they created is attracked by the overproduction of telomerase. I read both the article and their lab's page....they are very vague as to exactly how they target the virus specifically to cancerous cells. There are lots of ways to artificially kill cell in vivo, but cancer cells are almost always impossible to distinguish from the untransformed type. After reading the patent itself, they apparently placed the ADP (adenovirus death protein...the 'smart bomb') under the control of telomerase regulatory elements. Thus, any cell constituitively expressing telomerase (i.e. cancer cells) will be lysed by this virus. A couple concerns spring to mind: 1) how to eliminate the virus after treatment? Just because it's not lysing non-cancerous cells doesn't mean it can't infect them. 2) cells susceptible to adenoviruses. Adenoviruses enter through mucus membranes in the lungs, etc. and initially infect the epithelial layers. I think you might have trouble targeting these recombinant viruses to, say, brain or other kinds of cancer located in remote regions.

    • Re:Makes sense (Score:2, Interesting)

      by nimblebrain ( 683478 )

      Actually, it's not so much "more telomerase" as "any telomerase". There are precious few cells in the body that naturally produce telomerase. Crypt cells in the stomach are one, but the other, more disturbing possibility, is germ-line cells. Women don't have much to worry about in this regard, as eggs undergo meiosis early and lie dormant until needed, but sperm production is an ongoing process, and sperm has long telomeres.

      In Michael West's [michaelwest.org] book, The Immortal Cell (a very good read, BTW), they detail the

      • True geeks can count to 1,023 on their fingers :)

        I think you mean 2047. What True Geek doesn't have a few gigs of pr0n?

        P.S. You're all invited to my 200th birthday party :)

        Thanx! Consider yourself invited to my Y2k New Year's Eve party in 20 years!

        -
        • Thanx! Consider yourself invited to my Y2k New Year's Eve party in 20 years!


          Totally off-topic, but what the hell


          Surely, the Y2K party is in 44 years (2048), not 20 year (2024).

  • Economically Deficient (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Scoria ( 264473 ) <slashmail@nosPaM.initialized.org> on Thursday December 18, 2003 @01:56AM (#7751949) Homepage
    received the patent No. 6,627,190 for his work.

    Only the sufficiently wealthy may receive access, then. In many economically deficient portions of the world, relatively benign diseases have remained impressively lethal.

    Thirty years of effort, plus several decades of awaiting the availability of a less expensive implementation. What an unfortunate circumstance.
    • Considering that without their effort the medicine would never exist in the first place, they have every right to be rewarded and have control over their invention that they worked on for 30 years.

      • Re:Oh please (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Rascasse ( 719300 )
        I would hope that I'm the type of man that would find my reward in the lives of the people I saved, rather than the wealth that I accumulated watching the less fortunate ones die. Here's hoping that the patent isn't exploited in an overly greedy manner so as to make accessible any treatment that results from it, to as many people as possible.
      • At the risk of sounding preachy, have you ever seen a person with cancer die?

        Ever been to an oncology ward? It smells like rotting death. And the patients aren't quite sure which is worse, the cancer or the treatments.

        Bodies and faces deform in grotesquely humourous ways. And the pain. The most potent pain killers are used on a cancer floor. Picture a pain so severe that fentanyl (which is 100 times more powerful than morphine) isn't effective.

        On top of this misery, the cost. Any clue how much it takes t
    • I'm skeptical, and simillarly cynical in that I am sort of expecting for this work to be proved effective, and then sat on to the tune of (as someone else on this thread put it), "We have a cure, but it'll cost you $5,000 a day for the rest of your life."

      That said, simply because it's patented doesn't mean they WILL be greedy bastards. It just gives them more of an opportunity to do so. So i'm waiting before I pass judgement. The developers may honestly feel that patenting the virus is the best way to ens

    • Re:Economically Deficient (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @09:17AM (#7753567) Homepage Journal
      Get real.

      1) Without the patent system, it is very possible that this research would never have been developed in the first place.

      2) Having a patent does not require you to charge exorbitant rates. It's possible, but it's also possible that he'll decide to give the technique away for free.

      3) Patents expire after 17 years. So the absolute worst case is that it becomes available at lower cost in 17 years, not 'several decades'.

      4) Medical treatment isn't free, no matter how much we'd like it to be. The reasons that these 'economically deficient' (nice euphemism for 'poor', by the way) regions can't afford treatments for diseases with known cures isn't because of patents, it's because these treatments actually cost money to produce!

  • Dupe flameproofing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18, 2003 @02:00AM (#7751967)
    [Note: this is a very different project from the one mentioned by a previous Slashdot post [slashdot.org].]

    How ironic that story submitters are now feeling the need to add flameproofing like this to their submissions, in fear of the duplicate article police.

    • well if you see what happened with the dupe retards shouting their mouths off over the chinese phone articles, it's obvious they don't RTFA - dupe-reporting is just a new form of karma-whoring

  • Let's hope they got this right (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CatGrep ( 707480 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @02:01AM (#7751970)
    Article seems to indicate that they juiced this virus so it's more effective in killing cells. We can only hope that after it's been out in the environment for a while (and that's bound to happen, they can't keep everyone who gets it isolated for weeks) that it won't start to mutate and infect healthy cells too.

    so they patented this, but what's to keep someone from just getting their cancer cure by shaking hands with someone who's getting the treatment?
    • maybe similar to GM food: I think there was a case in US where a farmer's non-GM crops were contaminated by GM crops in a nearby farm. the farmer lost his ability to advertise as non-GM and had to pay rolyalties to the GM company for the priviledge.

      patents are so fucking stupid.
    • That's what I thought when I read the article too. Just what we need - an indiscriminate super-cold on the loose. Take one of the most resilient viral strains known to man, juice it up, and then hope it doesn't mutate. Riiiight.

      As for the second part, who knows how communicable the virus will be? Maybe they engineer it so it requires cancerous cells to survive (multiply). That way, only someone with cancer could carry the virus, as it would be wiped out in a healthy body. It could happen - I'm sure they'

  • A Number of Types of Herpes Viruses (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Are also being tried.

    No. They don't have to be *those* types of herpes - there are many types.

    The idea is pretty simple - and pretty fascinating - cancers basically occur when the replication processes refuses to shut down in a cell (actually it usually starts up again before it should). So if a virus can be found that interferes with the replication processes - hopefully before the cancer gets to it - voila. The lesser of two evils.

    Here's one [nih.gov] of many research articles online. These papers are *all ove

  • Cold? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Once they kill the cancer how will the deal with the cold?

  • A cure for cancer? (Score:4, Funny)

    by ncc74656 ( 45571 ) <scott@alfter.us> on Thursday December 18, 2003 @02:16AM (#7752035) Homepage Journal
    I guess it's time to thaw out John Wayne [zoggins.net]...he's gonna be pretty pissed off, having been on ice all this time.
  • Fighting Cancer With The Common Cold.

    Sounds like

    Pouring Gasoline on a fire.

  • P2P Cancer Cure (Score:4, Funny)

    by aduzik ( 705453 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @02:37AM (#7752105) Homepage
    You know, availability's simply not going to be a problem. My family has given me -- free of charge -- two common cold viruses already this year. It's only a matter of time before everyone catches the cancer cure cold, too!

    But then we'll all get sued by the AMA, the RIAA, and SCO for copyright infringement for illegally distributing the patented cure virus to complete strangers. They'll demand royalties every time a cell undergoes mitosis!

  • There once was a man named Wold
    Who cured cancer with the common cold.

    Sometimes life reflects some kind of sick little Dr. Seuss tale, doesn't it?

  • we want to KILL the cancer, not... give it a cold?

  • I have a few words to say to people like these... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mark-t ( 151149 ) <marktNO@SPAMnerdflat.com> on Thursday December 18, 2003 @04:52AM (#7752496) Journal
    Shut up about the press releases and just *DO* it already.

    Once you've actually *done* something, then feel free to stand up and take your bows... they will indeed be well deserved, but these types of promises for the future do nothing to help the people who are dying of cancer right now, many of whom may not even live to see the development of such a cure.

    So instead of wasting time making press releases about the "promise" of a cure for cancer, just shut your yap and *CURE* people... Your Nobel Prize in medicine awaits.

    (Sorry... do I sound a tad bitter?)

    • Imagine you're a cancer patient. You've been handed a death sentence from your doctor, effectively. Might be a few weeks, might be a few years, who knows. Now, once you get over the shock, and start living with the disease (and some people do for quite a long time), what are you going to do with yourself?

      1. Wait to die, knowing there will never be a cure, because all of modern science has yet to mention even the possiblity of one.

      2. Have some hope, because at least it's *possible* something might happen.
  • If we had cured the common cold we may not have stumbled upon this...

  • Questions left unanswered (Score:4, Funny)

    by sharkey ( 16670 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @08:50AM (#7753344)
    have genetically engineered a common cold virus

    But how many asses does it have?

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Close