Cancer Drug Found; Scientist Annoyed 349
sporkme writes "A scientist was frustrated when the compound she was working with (called PPAR-gamma) destroyed her sample of cancer cells. Further research revealed that the substance was surprisingly well suited as a cancer treatment. Lab test results on mice resulted in the destruction of colon tumors without making the mice sick." Quoting: "'I made a calculation error and used a lot more than I should have. And my cells died,' Schaefer said. A colleague overheard her complaining. 'The co-author on my paper said, "Did I hear you say you killed some cancer?" I said "Oh," and took a closer look.' ... [They found that the compound killed] 'pretty much every epithelial tumor cell lines we have seen.'" Update: 02/15 17:27 GMT by KD : As reader CorporalKlinger pointed out, PPAR-gamma is a cellular receptor, not a compound; and this news is not particularly new.
From TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
FTW. I found a cure for cancer, sorry patented. And for AIDS too, sorry patented. I found a cure for all sickness and death, sorry patented.
The focus is to narrow! (Score:3, Interesting)
This is where a good project manager should step in. "You do realize you've been painting the same tiny bit of trim for the past three hours, right?"
We need a new meme (Score:5, Interesting)
Every other compound you can order from Aldrich will kill cancer cells in vitro. So will a ball peen hammer. Drano, playground sand, double-acting baking powder. Pledge will kill them and leave a lemony-fresh scent.
When this compound gets to stage III clinical trials and does not leave a trail of bodies and does show some efficacy, then you can post the story.
Until then, Netcraft confirms it. These cancer cells are dying.
In the Soviet Union, cancer cells kill new drugs.
etc
Re:Moo (Score:4, Interesting)
"Research scientist" is probably a better term for the woman in TFA; "scientist" alone is so vague as to be almost unusable. It's just 'someone doing science,' and could be pretty much anyone from a grad student to a Nobel laureate; it doesn't say anything about what type or kind of science they're engaged in, or what their goals are.
Very True. Discovery of Teflon is another example. (Score:5, Interesting)
Source: http://users.wfu.edu/starbt5/Serendipity%20Projec
Re:Alexander Fleming said it best (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You have to wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
It's fairly far along in clinical trials and seems very promising, making it the first recognized effective pharmaceutical aphrodisiac.
Re:Now that is a true nerd (Score:3, Interesting)
She was lucky (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Typical science (Score:3, Interesting)
What we NEED, I would argue, is more researchers who have in-the-trenches practical experience, even (preferably!) in fields other than their own, so they're prepared to recognize those new uses. A little more Heinlein, a little less Asimov. A failed result in one research program is a wild success in a completely different practical application.
The history of Post-Its [wikipedia.org] is illustrative -- Spencer Silver invented a very poor adhesive for 3M in 1968; Arthur Fry figured out that it could be used for re-usable bookmarks in 1974. How much more money would 3M have made during those intervening years if Silver was a better lateral thinker?
A second part to the story, not shown in the Wikipedia article, claims that Fry initially ran into opposition from a marketing director, who didn't see any market for the semi-sticky notes. Fry, clearly a man who had what it takes, distributed pilot batches to the secretaries at 3M, with a note telling them to contact the marketing director for refills...
Silver was the guy doing 'research'. The concept of 'adhesive-on-paper-substrate' (e.g, masking tape) existed already for decades. The closest Fry came to innovation was the idea of using a poor, rather than a strong, adhesive (Silver's ) on a paper substrate -- but he had the practical experience both to see an application, and to get it to the light of day.
Re:So are a fair percentage of "last words".... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Moo (Score:3, Interesting)
I am claiming that there are too many doctors that are too focused on their specialty that they ignore anything else.
I walked into a big city doctor's office with multiple fractures in my hand. After the doctor has multiple x-rays taken, reviewed by him, and several others, he proclaims that I have a bad sprain.
I then go to another doctor (small town, generalist family doctor), he takes one x-ray, with my hand moved to a slightly different position, and finds the fractures, I'd say there's something definitely wrong with today's ideas of specialists.
There's not enough generalists to go around.
blind luck plus ability to recognize. (Score:3, Interesting)
The decades of previous work, including her education and work experience, worked steadily towards her being a cancer researcher who was following a logical chain that brought cancer cells and compound together for the discovery.
But sometimes you DO have a "blind luck" event - which someone with the right education can recognize and develop.
An example (which I heard from Emmett Leith, one of the inventors of practical holography) was the discovery (not invention) of the neodymium/glass laser.
Laser researcher (in the "rod of synthetic ruby" days) was home for vacation and took a flash picture using a strobe-light flash on a camera. He happened to notice a red blink from an ashtray. So he fired the flash at it:
Flash
Flash
Flash
Asking for and receiving the oddball ashtray, he took it in to the lab, along with the flash camera, called everybody together, and ran the demo:
Flash
After everybody else had seen and confirmed the phenomenon they smashed the glass and spectroanalyzed the fragments, discovering the neodymium impurity (which had provided the gain - interacting with the total internal reflection of the ashtray surfaces which provided the resonant cavity).
Then they were successful at making lasers out of rods of neodymium-doped glass - much cheaper than synthetic ruby.