Earlier quoted context omitted.
This method is not targeting mutations important for cancer, this is targeting "passenger" somatic mutations. You can't use this mechanism to target important mutations because only a minority of patients are going to be able to present an oncogenic mutation (e.g. BRAF V600E) as an antigen (because of differing HLA types). In those rare cases perhaps this therapy might succeed, although the tumor probably still has w…
I was under the impression that the major reason for the failure of current immunotherapy treatments is due to non-response, not excessive autoimmunity.
Crispr Wins Key Approval to Fight Cancer in Human Trials
71–80 of 89 posts
Re: Crispr Wins Key Approval to Fight Cancer in Human Trials
#72Something unsettling about how that is worded, but this awesome. There hasn't really been any major breakthrough like this in a very long time, as the era of antibiotics ends, new treatments like this might open the door for a new wave of medical treatments.
Re: Crispr Wins Key Approval to Fight Cancer in Human Trials
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're actually pretty terrible. It isn't a high bar to do better than the NIH when it comes to supporting new technologies. Almost all important early fundamental research, the high-risk part leading up to new knowledge and potential new technologies, is supported by philanthropy. The NIH really only funds follow-on work for things that are already known. In order to win a grant you have to have already proven your…
Ironically, you skipped "Give it to a lab whose research you want to support."
Re: Crispr Wins Key Approval to Fight Cancer in Human Trials
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tend to believe the NIH is better at administrating grants than I am.
I'd absolutely agree they're better than I am personally, since I'm neither a medical researcher nor an expert at evaluating medical research. But I don't believe they're better than an organization focused on solving a specific problem. As a random example of inefficiency: there's a lot more money going into research on specific degenerative diseases than into the causes and solutions for degeneration. Solve the roo…
Neurodegeneration is a pattern of response to multiple disease processes - we can only understand the response by studying the cases in which it arises.
For the tech-minded crowd, this is like wanting to create responsive designs without actually making websites to demonstrate them.
Re: Crispr Wins Key Approval to Fight Cancer in Human Trials
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not very effectively or with the focus you might want, though.
I tend to believe the NIH is better at administrating grants than I am.
Re: Crispr Wins Key Approval to Fight Cancer in Human Trials
#76Having lost a sister and a son to cancer I hope for this to work. The issues are tremendous for this technique and I don't have high hopes for its use on cancer. I am still having high hopes on immune system techniques that helps the body to mark cancer cells and attack the cells for most cancers. CRISPR big hope is that it can change the cell to stop reproducing or stop invading other cells. Simply put cancer cells…
Sorry to hear that. Hang in there. I lost my mom to cancer about a year ago.
I have learned through this that A) I depend on God B) I love life and cherish more because of the journey. SO they have made enjoy life more because they were in my life.
> I lost my mom to cancer
Sorry to hear that. Cancer SUCKS
Re: Crispr Wins Key Approval to Fight Cancer in Human Trials
#77If you think stuff like this is cool, and you'd like to be a part of the software engineering effort at Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, msg me. ccary@parkerici.org We are building out our platform for bioinformatics. Some engineering topics: * Large scale data processing (Cloud & on-prem HPC based) * Bioinformatics / ML algorithms * Data storage & retrieval (File systems & databases)
Re: Crispr Wins Key Approval to Fight Cancer in Human Trials
#78If you want to better understand the CRISPR patent dispute, this article lays out the arguments very clearly. https://www.statnews.com/2016/03/18/crispr-patent-dispute/
In the case where this was a known technique that had significant difficulties in translating to eukaryotic work, then the Broad Institute's work would be significant. That was not, however, the case. Very little needed to change, and the technique has been widely applicable.
Just a quick look though Doudna's publications shows that this is an issue with a great deal of background work behind it, years of effort that fortuitously resulted in an incredible invention. Then, someone comes along, copies your work in some different bugs, and claims ownership. It's really no more complicated than that.
Re: Crispr Wins Key Approval to Fight Cancer in Human Trials
#79---
(1) This just happened this month. The Doctor called me with the results literally the week after I handed in my notice at a secure job to join an early-stage startup.
Life really is short! (http://www.paulgraham.com/vb.html)
No I don't regret my decision :)
(Also thank Jeebus I live in Canada where my current lack of benefits does not preclude me from getting the best treatment.)
Re: Crispr Wins Key Approval to Fight Cancer in Human Trials
#80If you want to better understand the CRISPR patent dispute, this article lays out the arguments very clearly. https://www.statnews.com/2016/03/18/crispr-patent-dispute/