Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Medicine Science

Key Gene Found Responsible For Accelerated Aging and Cancer 114

First time accepted submitter gbrennan123 writes "Researchers at NYU School of Medicine have identified a single gene that simultaneously controls inflammation, accelerated aging and cancer. From the article: '"This was certainly an unexpected finding," said principal investigator Robert J. Schneider, PhD, the Albert Sabin Professor of Molecular Pathogenesis, associate director for translational research and co-director of the Breast Cancer Program at NYU Langone Medical Center. "It is rather uncommon for one gene to have two very different and very significant functions that tie together control of aging and inflammation. The two, if not regulated properly, can eventually lead to cancer development. It's an exciting scientific find."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Key Gene Found Responsible For Accelerated Aging and Cancer

Comments Filter:
  • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday May 27, 2012 @06:50PM (#40130899) Journal
    It's usable immediately, in the form of directing future research.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 27, 2012 @07:41PM (#40131119)

    Without the upwards pressure of too many humans we'll never get off this shit hole of a planet :)

  • by nedlohs ( 1335013 ) on Sunday May 27, 2012 @08:00PM (#40131203)

    If you've "cured" aging there are no "old people".

  • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pitchpipe ( 708843 ) on Sunday May 27, 2012 @08:20PM (#40131293)
    I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying. - Woody Allen

    I have to say that I agree with this sentiment. I'd much rather be me living now, than The Buddha himself, as I still get to breathe, etc.

  • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {kapimi}> on Sunday May 27, 2012 @09:50PM (#40131701) Homepage Journal

    On the other hand, Shakyamuni Buddha lived into his 80s, Jean Manual Fangio only gave up professional motor racing in his 90s, and the Queen Mother was conducting human experiments on the effects of gin past the century mark.

  • Re:The flip side (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {kapimi}> on Sunday May 27, 2012 @09:57PM (#40131741) Homepage Journal

    There are many, many genes involved in different forms of cancer, the most this will do is impact research in a few forms of the disease.

    Immortality would get tedious after a while. What you really want is a method to transcribe the contents of the brain plus the original genome of the body, altered to include a flesh-eating component that is normally inactive. When the body inevitably wears out, you make a few adjustments to the genome to prevent that cause of death killing you again. You then make the stem cell "carnivorous", using the raw material of your old body to create a new one, re-inserting "you" into the new brain in the process.

    I call this technique "regeneration" and think that, in the interests of population control, people should be limited to 12 of them.

  • Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 27, 2012 @11:27PM (#40132167)

    Buddha didn't go to Nirvana when he died, the entire point is that he achieved enlightenment (got to Nirvana) while alive.

  • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mikael_j ( 106439 ) on Monday May 28, 2012 @12:37AM (#40132535)

    Define 'waste', please.

    If suddenly I could live for another 500+ years I don't see what harm it would do if I spent some of that time enjoying myself.

    I would still be able to read more books, study more things and be more productive than I ever could have if I only lived to be 80 or so.

    The argument you're making is hardly unique and when taken to its logical conclusion is that we should all sleep on the ground, work all waking hours and eat mass-produced nutrient slurry because anything more than that would be decadent and wasteful indulgences.

  • by nedlohs ( 1335013 ) on Monday May 28, 2012 @01:07AM (#40132701)

    Maybe, but "curing" aging means fixing those genetic and physical weat-and-tear issues. Mental is another story, but who knows maybe massively extended lifespans makes people less cautious. Since we don't have them we don't know.

    And of course there's a cure for entropy. Humans are not closed systems after all. Heck the heat pump in my house "cures" entropy.

    More cautious makes sense - you have more to lose dieing early, you have more to lose by losing your wealth, etc. Then again you've already lived a long time, maybe you consider it worth taking more risks just for the excitement value, maybe knowing you have huge amounts of time to make up that lost wealth makes risk taking more attractive?

    Maybe centuries of wisdom more than compensates for whatever youth brings.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A giant panda bear is really a member of the racoon family.