Live data from Hacker News

Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

writingruxandrabio.com

21–30 of 111 posts

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#21
This article is a good illustration of what's wrong with the current predominant approach in biology — it's all about genes and proteins, it's all way too reductionist to yield any meaningful higher-level outcomes. It's like trying to understand and manipulate an alien technology equivalent to a computer running a React web app, except you're only ever looking at and manipulating individual transistors in the CPU.

As Michael Levin said it, "reductionism is aptly named, it reduces what you can do". Do check out his research btw, it's some seriously impressive stuff. According to him, cancer, in particular, is simply a result of a group of cells electrically disconnecting from the surrounding tissue. He was able to force them to reconnect in one of his experiments, curing the tumor without killing anything.

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#22
So Peter Thiel is an idiot.

Biology especially human biology is a lot harder simply because experiments have bigger ethical issues.

Even if you have desperate cancer patients there are limits how and what you can test.

And we have others fields where all these brilliant people according to him are working and all the money goes and the problems are also not solved.

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#24
post #22

So Peter Thiel is an idiot. Biology especially human biology is a lot harder simply because experiments have bigger ethical issues. Even if you have desperate cancer patients there are limits how and what you can test. And we have others fields where all these brilliant people according to him are working and all the money goes and the problems are also not solved.

Every one of Peter Thiel's opinions is a dark provocative secret. He's very predictable

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#25
post #21

This article is a good illustration of what's wrong with the current predominant approach in biology — it's all about genes and proteins, it's all way too reductionist to yield any meaningful higher-level outcomes. It's like trying to understand and manipulate an alien technology equivalent to a computer running a React web app, except you're only ever looking at and manipulating individual transistors in the CPU. As…

Its interesting how your example perfectly illustrates reductionism in action. There are so many things that can go wrong, which is why cancer is such a heterogeneous group of diseases. There are many mutations that can happen which can lead to cancer growth and they have nothing to do with electrophysiology.

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#26
Thanks for sharing a great article. Overall, I think the path to develop a drug is very multi-dimensional, cost and time intensive and very slow. Some other elements to add to the article:

- The preclinical drug discovery phase was not mentioned much. This phase involves discovering/designing/creating an actual drug against a potential biological mechanism/target uncovered by biology/genomics. Although this is generally seen as a more tractable element of the drug development path, it can still be very difficult and requires many years of additional research. Even so, some targets are well known to have great potential in disease, but it has been very difficult to generate a selective and potent drug against it. This phase typically does involve more "theoretically defined" research (although it is still messy) with chemists, biophysicists and pharmacologists, which fit more into the article's mention of the "mathematician". Yet, in line with the article, these often-talented people cannot always create a suitable drug for a given target. Providing further evidence that it is not "just" a lack of mathematically talented individuals.

- The reasons for drug failures in the clinic can be more numerous than alluded to in the article. Some drugs are very toxic, not only because of off-target side effects, but potentially also due to on-target side effects. In deadly cancers, this might not be so much of a problem, but it can still be a limiting element when we combine drugs to limit the surfacing of drug resistant cancer cells.

- As mentioned by others, cancer cells are cells from our own body, and they utilize our body's functions in excessive or highly altered manners to grow. However, blocking these functions selectively in cancer cells can be difficult (especially if non-genetically) as these functions often are still present in all other cells.

- Cancer metastasizes, cancer cells can spread across the body and generate new tumors elsewhere in the body. This can be almost anywhere, and it can be very difficult to detect early metastases in a patient. Hence, stopping treatment too early, even though the doctors might not see any cancer cells and the treatment has strong side effects, means you could redevelop cancer. Moreover, some metastatic sites might be in locations that are hard to reach for a given drug, hence they might not be fully targeted by a given drug.

- Full-blown cancers typically do not develop solely because of a single driving genetic alteration. Instead, a series of 2~5 genetic/biological alterations from a potential pool of dozens of genetic factors in combination leads to an aggressive tumor. Note though that it can be true that a single genetic alteration is dominant and drives a large part of cancer growth. Even in a single cancer type (e.g. colon cancer) the combination of 2-5 alterations leading to aggressive cancer can be different. Moreover, even within a single patient, different metastatic sites might evolve on their own and acquire different combinations of these driving factors. Hence, to truly treat some cancers targeting multiple drivers would be ideal, and each patient might require a relatively unique approach.

- Cancer cells are genetically unstable and can rapidly alter their genetic makeup. The DNA of normal human cells consists of two sets of 23 chromosomes that are well-organized and add up to ~3 billion DNA base pairs (the code of life). Cancers show very variable chromosome numbers and some advanced cancers can have more than 100 chromosomes. Moreover, cancer chromosomes can be heavily altered, where pieces of other chromosomes integrate into others, translocate, bridge, reconnect. It can be a total soup of >10 billion DNA base pairs. Moreover, these changes are different for each cancer, so every cancer patient will be more or less unique. This genetic instability also allows cancer cells to rapidly mutate and adapt/develop resistance to a given drug treatment.

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#27
post #22

So Peter Thiel is an idiot. Biology especially human biology is a lot harder simply because experiments have bigger ethical issues. Even if you have desperate cancer patients there are limits how and what you can test. And we have others fields where all these brilliant people according to him are working and all the money goes and the problems are also not solved.

It's not just ethics. Biology is just plain complicated. It's a science which tries to reverse engineer the results of billions of years of natural selection.

A human body belonging to a lucky person might live the better part of a century, all the time which it grows, heals itself when injured, processes food into new resources, hosts an example of the best known thinking machine in the world (the human brain), and literally has the machinery to produce one or more additional human beings. These are capabilities which are incredibly difficult to replicate artificially, so much so that producing a robot that could do even half of these things remains firmly in the realm of science fiction. And it wasn't designed, it was evolved, so it's about the worst mess of spaghetti code you could imagine. It's simply a hard problem.

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#29
post #27
post #22

So Peter Thiel is an idiot. Biology especially human biology is a lot harder simply because experiments have bigger ethical issues. Even if you have desperate cancer patients there are limits how and what you can test. And we have others fields where all these brilliant people according to him are working and all the money goes and the problems are also not solved.

It's not just ethics. Biology is just plain complicated . It's a science which tries to reverse engineer the results of billions of years of natural selection. A human body belonging to a lucky person might live the better part of a century, all the time which it grows, heals itself when injured, processes food into new resources, hosts an example of the best known thinking machine in the world (the human brain), and…

But ethics is the reason it's harder to experiment on a complicated matter.

In physics you can totally shatter your test object to get to the inner functions.

You can't do that with living creatures especially humans.

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#30

This idea of "curing cancer" as if cancer was a monolithic disease really needs to die. Cancer is just a catch-all term for somatic cell mutations that become unmanageable. There are as many ways to get "cancer" as there are ways to mutate cells into these sort of uncontrollable states. And there are cures for multiple cancers today (Imantinib, Herceptin, etc). There actually have been enormous recent strides in drug…

Yeah, I always make sure to say cancer(s) so we can skip the “it’s not one disease “ digression. It adds nothing to the conversation.

According to Craig Venter, early detection is what we need to eliminate cancer(s): https://youtu.be/iUqgTYbkHP8?t=15m37s

Post reply on HN