A paradigm shift in cancer research?

This is a fantastic video by Dr. David Agus, who makes a convincing argument to change how we view and study this disease.

Is it legal to patent “genes”?

You are probably familiar with the ongoing debate concerning the ability of someone to patent mutations that occur within a sequence of a gene.

Recently, this topic has been in headline news due the legal battle between different groups (including ACLU) and Myriad Genetics (the patent holders for the DNA sequence containing BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations – mutations responsible for most hereditary breast and ovarian cancers).

This story has been reported by several news outlets. You can read more at USA Today, Wall Stree Journal (subscription required), and Reuters.

The concept of patenting a human gene violates the rules of obtaining a patent (i.e. a patent cannot be placed on something that exists in nature). However, Myriad Genetics’ patent is not on the gene itself, the patent is on the mutations that occur in that gene. Identification of this mutation is used to determine someone’s risk of developing hereditary subtypes of breast and/or ovarian cancers.

Groups suing Myriad Genetics claim the patent is hampering scientific research/innovation. It is not clear to me, at this time, why/how the patent would prevent advancing research in this area. I will have to dig deeper into this.

Nonetheless, the objective of the lawsuit is to invalidate the patent. If the patent on the BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation is invalidated, a new start-up can develop a genetic test to detect this mutation. Since this new company did not invest any research money or time in identifying the mutations (which Myriad had to do), they can afford to price their genetic test very inexpensively compared to Myriad.

On the surface, an inexpensive test sounds appealing, doesn’t it?

The problem, however, is that Myriad will have to lower their prices too and, as a result, may be unable to recoup the money they invested in research, time, money, and resources. What would this mean to Myriad? Not clear, exactly, but it certainly would not be good news.

But, what would this mean to other companies who are trying to develop other innovative genetic tests to determine an individual’s susceptibility for a specific disease? Will anyone invest in these companies if such investment may not be financially worthwhile in the long term?

Companies and investors are willing to take a risk by spending money, time, and research with the hope that some day their investments will pay off when the product goes to market.

What happens, then, if that incentive goes away?

I think the answer is simple: no one would invest in generating scientific discoveries or translating these discoveries to products that would benefit society.

And this is certainly not good news for advancements in the field of genetic testing.

So what is the solution?

It is critical for the courts who are handling this legal battle to be careful not to compromise the future of ventures that aim to develop genetic tests.

Obviously, there is no straightforward solution. We must identify a balance; we have to figure out how a company that conducts research and develops a product can profit, without hampering scientific innovation or progress in that area of research.

Clinical and Translational Research Network

Welcome to CTSciNet, the Clinical and Translational Science Network, which is a web-based social networking infrastructure developed by Science Careers, AAAS, and sponsored by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund.

The objective of this network is to help scientists who are interested in becoming involved in the clinical and translational research field to communicate with others to establish collaborations, share ideas, discuss career-related issues, and more. In addition to the community, CTSciNet members have access to a fantastic collection of articles and resources for clinical and translational research.

For more information, details, and to register, please visit Welcome to CTSciNet.

If you are a basic scientist, once you join the community, please be sure to join the Translational Research for PhD Scientists group.

Science fiction is now a reality!

Although a few months old, I recently stumbled upon this clip from a 60 Minutes interview of a couple of neuro-scientists, who are in the preliminary phases of successfully identifying an individual’s thoughts, intentions, and experiences.

The implications of this are far-reaching; it could change the way we testify in courts, interrogate suspects, and even in marketing!

It is quite fascinating, compelling, and downright scary! Please enjoy the video below (13 minutes 18 seconds).

Illustration of the Science News Cycle

Since before I started graduate school in August 2004, I have tremendously enjoyed Jorge Cham’s comic strips, and I have been an avid follower of PhDComics.com.

In his recent comic strip (below), Jorge cleverly illustrated the misrepresentation of research findings in the mass media.

Please Enjoy:

For more comic strips by Jorge Cham, please visit his website: PhDComics.com.

Collaboration for Young Scientists

A healthy collaboration in science can be a crucial element for conducting a successful and sustainable research program. By combining their different strengths toward a common goal, scientists can usually help one another reach their research targets more efficiently.

For young scientists (especially graduate students and post-docs), establishing collaborations can provide another set of benefits, which are discusses in Peter Fiske’s recent article in Science: Opportunities: Career Advantages of Collaboration.

In addition, in his article, Fiske writes about how to identify opportunities and what should you look for in a collaborator, if you are a young scientist.

ResearchGate: Closing the Gap between Scientists

In addition to trying to “close the gap” between science and society, one of our goals here is to bring scientists closer to one another to foster openness, cooperation, and collaboration.

I would like to invite you to visit the “Facebook” for scientists: Research Gate launched about 6 months ago. It is a great tool to meet other scientists in your field for discussion and/or collaboration, join groups, and much more.

Visit Research Gate, create a profile, and network with the other 20,000 scientists who are the ResearchGate community.

The Elegance of Scientific Research

In his editorial in the last edition of 2008 of Science magazine, Bruce Alberts highlights the most significant discoveries covered in Science throughout 2008.

Interestingly, he mentions that the two most prominent discoveries (cell programming and direct observations of planets 100 light years away) span the scale of 10^23 meters, which is a “breathtaking illustration of the tremendous reach of science” as Bruce Alberts puts it.

Despite these amazing discoveries, Dr. Alberts discusses an important aspect of scientific research: the unknowns are unending. These breakthrough discoveries are only the beginning, because they have certainly raised a whole new set of questions. In fact, one would say, that (especially relevant for the cell programming breakthrough) a new field has been born.

As I look back at 2008, even for my own research, I agree with Bruce Alberts that scientific discovery is definitely inspiring… I cannot wait to learn about what I as well as other scientists will continue to unravel in 2009.

Realistic Public Expectations of Science

Conceptually, stem cell research provides a very promising potential to cure many diseases. But realistically, how far are we from harvesting the power of embryonic stem cells to cure diseases?

President-Elect Obama has promised to lift the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Needless to say, this has led to a great deal of excitement among scientists.

Of course, scientists understand the length, hard work, and challenges that this opportunity presents… but does the public understand this?

Are scientists clearly communicating the potential while addressing realistic benchmarks and expectations? Or are we allowing the public to arrive to its own conclusions about what and when to expect results?

For example, in the past, the public has expected and waited for scientists to develop a cancer “silver bullet”. Given the extremely diverse nature of cancer, a “silver bullet” is of course not realistic… but perhaps the public did not know that it wasn’t realistic. Since it has yet to be achieved, some have grown cynical toward the field of cancer research.

What should and could we do as scientists to express excitement because of the potential of a drug, technique, or study, yet simultaneously communicate realistic expectations to the public?

The Cell: A Moving Target

Although three years old (it came out in 2005), I am still fascinated reading this paper as much as I did when I read it for the first time a couple of years ago.

Why?  This paper contradicts 2 common “facts”:

1. Insulin-like Growth Factor-I Recpetor (IGF-IR) signaling is anti-apoptotic, and

2. Activation of the Akt pathway causes cell survival.

While true in most cases, the paper provides strong and convincing evidence that in some cases, the IGF-I (the ligand for the IGF-IR) sensitizes cells to apoptosis… AND this IGF-induced pro-apoptotic effect is mediated through the activation of Akt.

The paper sheds light on the complexity of the mysterious biological system called the “cell” by providing mechanistic justification for these apparent contradictions to the traditional roles of IGF-IR and Akt:

Apparently, the ability of the IGF-IR to signal both anti-apoptotic and pro-apoptotic signaling is dependent on the localization of the receptor in the plasma membrane (whether it is located inside or outside of membrane lipid rafts).

Isn’t that amazing!?

In cellular research, often times, we try to define the cell based on a number of characteristics or principles… but papers like the one mentioned above serve as prominent reminders that the cell is a dynamic system that does not always fit into the graphs and the Western Blot figures that we, as scientists, generate.

In case you are intrigued and would like to read this paper, here is a link:

Membrane Rafts Segregate Pro- from Anti-Apoptotic Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I Receptor Signaling in Colon Carcinoma Cells Stimulated by Members of the Tumor Necrosis Factor Superfamily by Maryse Remacle-Bonnet et al.

I have to warn you, it’s a long paper, and I am not sure I would read it all if it weren’t relevent to my research.  However, for its conceptual value alone, it’s definitely worth examining.