Good News and Bad News on Cancer

Scientists affiliated with the Cancer genome project have isolated hundreds of genes that, when mutated, contribute to Cancer:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6424117.stm

In the 1980's, there was a fair amount of optimism that Cancer could be linked to isolated gene mutations- perhaps acting alone- that caused the development of tumors and subsequent metastasis (spread to other tissues). This research indicates that Cancer (or at least many types of Cancer) are the result of multiple gene products acting together (or no longer interacting correctly) to create the conditions necessary for Cancer. As one might imagine, this makes early diagnosis more difficult and treatment potentially more challenging (although, a drug that hits one target may still be enough to stop the disease).

Interestingly, one set of prime culprits were the "kinases." These proteins take a phosphate group from the energy carrier ATP (Adenosine TriPhosphate) and attach it to another protein. What is the point of such an action? By attaching a phospate group on another protein, that protein might change shape- thus activating or deactivating the function of that protein. The result is that the signalling (communication) system within the cell is disrupted. A cell might be activated to start dividing or invading new tissues. Certain chemicals that are known to cause Cancer activate protein kinases. Phorbol Ester (a chemical found in linseed) is one such chemical that is highly carcinogenic and turns on a certain kinase named Protein Kinase C. These are just one set of a variety of other proteins that turn on and off the cells communication pathways. It is likely that genomics will find many other signalling proteins that play a role in Cancer formation and spread. It also means that scientists will identify more drug targets that could be used to control Cancer.

Getting rid of the term "Stone Age"

Anthropologists want to get rid of the term "stone age" when referring to certain populations:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6422581.stm

Normally, I'm not a big fan of changing terms for things but this one is probably over-due. Those Stone Age people may not use the latest technologies but they seem to do just fine- as long as they are isolated from us "enlightened" beings.

While we are at it, I've always found the term "simple organism" to be offensive. While the Archaebacteria that live in hot springs are ancient, they are anything but simple. Can you live in water several 100 degrees in temperature suffused with sulfur? Same goes for radiodurans- it lives in nuclear reactors where its DNA undergoes constant reshuffling due to radiation. Anything that can live in those conditions is anything but simple.

Europe Enters "The War for Talent"

The European Research Council has set aside a new fund for "blue sky" research:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6399157.stm

The fund has been created to make Europe more economically competitive- the same rationale that gets used in the U.S. by people who have little knowledge of science and little more knowledge of economics. It was interestingly inaugurated in Germany- the birth place of academic scientific research with commercial application. From an economics standpoint, much needs to be done in Europe to make the transfer of academic research to commercial application more seamless. However, regardless of the rationale for creating this fund, the U.S. should take notice. The U.S. cannot expect to use Europe (or China or India) as a reservoir of ready-made scientific talent. The biggest thing to come out of this fund may have little to do with Europe creating "The next big thing" and everything to do with Europe holding on to its best and brightest.

Open Source Publishing, Tenure and Other Fantasies

The Public Library of Online Science (PLOS) Biology had the following editorial advocating public access to scientific findings funded by the Federal government:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050048

On a general note, I couldn't agree more. Publishing companies charge ridiculous subscription rates for university libraries. This has gotten to a point where even large relatively well-funded universities have to pick and choose which journals they are going to provide to their students and faculty. For public universities, access to information represents one more hurdle that limits their ability to compete for the best faculty, grad students, etc.. Moreover, state legislatures seldom find library resources to be "sexy" enough to spend tax payer money on- better to spend it on some towering edifice of half-empty lab space filled with subpar faculty doomed to be booted when tenure just doesn't work out- but that's another story.

The authors ,who represent such highly diverse groups as 1.) Nobel Prize winners and 2.) tenured faculty at MIT, spend much of this editorial NOT talking up the benefits of open access to the public but instead point to the benefits of open access across different generations of scientists. In a nutshell- "For younger scientists, being recognized is critical to our professional successes. Making our work openly available is a means of being recognized and emulated. Senior researchers also should be encouraging their graduate students and postdoctoral colleagues to use open access for career advancement." Well, this is a dilemma- who is going to go first? Who wants to put their career on the line and forgo that paper in "Science" or "Nature"? How will these older and presumably "more kindly" faculty look upon a tenure file filled with open access papers. What graduate student or post-doc wants to commit career suicide by publishing in an open access journal. Let's try not to pretend that we aren't heading toward a two-tier system of publication of high-end, high presige, high expense journals and everything else.

I really wish the scientific world could be this way- free of judgment and open to the collegial interchange of ideas. Science is not for the weak or the kindly. Academic science is a self-selecting system that grinds down those who don't have the exceedingly high levels of talent and/or complete self-sacrifice to succeed. Perhaps tenured faculty and Nobel Prize winners are willing to put aside their egos long enough to publish "down" but there will be harsh rewards for younger faculty who do the same. This is obviously very pessimistic. The editorial needed to point towards some policy recommendations that would ensure scientific results would be judged on other merits beyond the prestige of the journal. Without it, I can hear the scoffing of thousands of young faculty trying to sweat out another paper before 5 years is up.

The world of open access is truly wonderful and will do much to increase the flow of information- especially to universities in poorer nations with low library budgets. However, the academic science establishment is going to have to reform itself before publications are truly open- same is true of research DATA but that is another story.