The recent passing of Michael Crichton from throat cancer, ironically juxtaposed to part of the plot in his recent novel "Next" - which was exploring a few of the genetic engineering issues related to cancer treatment - got me thinking along these same lines (and to feeling kind of smug about being a non-smoker).
[side note] Michael's surname is Scottish - and derived from Gaelic words meaning "border farm". Crichton's mind was a bit like a border farm where the boundary was between science-future and science-present. In the novel, "BioGen" is a villainous genetic research company which is fighting a lawsuit with a cancer survivor whose cells were taken without his consent or knowledge for the purpose of creating a drug to fight the kind of cancer he survived. But - aside from the remote possibility of an existing human anti-cancer gene, which is the focus of the novel. there is another route - a virus which harmlessly infects most people at some time in their lives, and which can serve as a "carrier" of other drugs. IOW this virus appears to help anti-cancer drugs destroy tumors far more efficiently. [side note] In evolutionary terms, there is little advantage to an evolved human gene which can fight cancer, since (by and large) - the victims of this disease are well past child-bearing age when afflicted, and their offspring are already out on their own. In fact, there could an actual disadvantage or negative evolutionary pressure - to such a gene occurring naturally; that is (negative evolutionary pressure) from the societal perspective. This would be because it could prolong the lives of older people who statistically may not be as productive (historically but not anymore) as the resource which they once required to continue on. Anyway the easier way to pull of a anti-cancer gene may be to do something which nature herself has avoided over the eons (perhaps on purpose) - and do it with a particular bacteria or virus as an "infective" agent or carrier. There is type of life known as a reovirus, which can infect tumor cells preferentially because they lack the cellular machinery that keeps the virus in check (in healthy human cells). Few humans are not bothered by this one. In fact viri (or viruses, depending on your spell-checker) always get a 'bad rap' (for good reason) but most of them are innocuous - just along "for a free ride" so to speak. Results were released last week from two studies in which patients who had serious cancers (that had become resistant to all therapies) were cured or greatly helped by using the virus - together with (as a carrier of) two standard anti-cancer drugs. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15149-virus-accomplice-helps-drugs-fight-cancer.html This is good news for those of us who are at an age where it is "only a matter of time" statistically speaking. Michael Crichton did not beat those odds in his own life, but he may have gotten a glimpse of the future from his "border farm" - and who knows but that his novel did not play a part? ... i.e. such as in inspiring, or in presenting an alternative point of view, for the Doctors who were involved in the recent work? Jones
