Cure for cancer within reach using nanotechnology?

[BrokenVisage]

Text

Nanotechnology has been harnessed to kill cancer cells without harming healthy tissue.

The technique works by inserting microscopic synthetic rods called carbon nanotubules into cancer cells.

When the rods are exposed to near-infra red light from a laser they heat up, killing the cell, while cells without rods are left unscathed.

Details of the Stanford University work are published by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Researcher Dr Hongjie Dai said: "One of the longstanding problems in medicine is how to cure cancer without harming normal body tissue.

"Standard chemotherapy destroys cancer cells and normal cells alike.

"That's why patients often lose their hair and suffer numerous other side effects.

"For us, the Holy Grail would be finding a way to selectively kill cancer cells and not damage healthy ones."

Looking good fellas..

 

[So]

That still leaves the major problem: finding ALL the cancer cells in the first place. If we could do that, 99% of cancer could be cured with good old mid 20th century surgical techniques.

 

[noob in a box]

within reach of the next century's technology. one of these "cure" articles is posted every few weeks

and this doesn't sound like it will even lead to a treatment. they can't put nanotubes in just cancerous cells. there is barely a difference between them and regular cells

 

[neutralizer]

Originally posted by: So
That still leaves the major problem: finding ALL the cancer cells in the first place. If we could do that, 99% of cancer could be cured with good old mid 20th century surgical techniques.

Yeah, that's what I thought of when I read it. It's not that great IMO.

 

[Heisenberg]

My view for a while has been that nanotechnology will ultimately be the way to really combat disease. The biological approach is just primitive by comparison. We have a much better grasp of the knowledge necessary to manufacture and program nanobots to destroy disease and repair cells than we do the molecular biology required to do the same thing.

 

[Gibsons]

Notice that they said nothing of how they can target the nanotubes specifically to cancer cells. Killing is the easy part, the specific targeting is hard.

 

[inveterate]

What did the Blind and Deaf kid get for christmas,,,,, ?What?,,,,,, "!Cancer!",,,, hahahahaha

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
My view for a while has been that nanotechnology will ultimately be the way to really combat disease. The biological approach is just primitive by comparison. We have a much better grasp of the knowledge necessary to manufacture and program nanobots to destroy disease and repair cells than we do the molecular biology required to do the same thing.

I have to disagree with the second part. There are zero nanobots that can destroy disease and repair cells. They don't exist outside of theory. Molecular biology has cured diseases and saved lives and currently is the only extant method for any sort of gene therapy or cell repair.

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
My view for a while has been that nanotechnology will ultimately be the way to really combat disease. The biological approach is just primitive by comparison. We have a much better grasp of the knowledge necessary to manufacture and program nanobots to destroy disease and repair cells than we do the molecular biology required to do the same thing.

I have to disagree with the second part. There are zero nanobots that can destroy disease and repair cells. They don't exist outside of theory. Molecular biology has cured diseases and saved lives and currently is the only extant method for any sort of gene therapy or cell repair.

True, but nanotechnology and related fields haven't been around very long. However, they are growing at a much faster rate than the biological sciences. My prediction is that eventually the curves will cross and nanotechnology will overtake the biological. I've had this discussion with a guy that has a Ph.D. in molecular biology and does drug testing research, and FWIW, he agreed with me. That's in no way definitive of anything of course, but I'm at least fairly confident I'm not completely off my rocker.

 

[Rudee]

The technique works by inserting microscopic synthetic rods called carbon nanotubules into cancer cells.

Wow, such a simple cure. Why didn't we think of that before? :roll:

 

[Jassi]

Originally posted by: noob in a box
within reach of the next century's technology. one of these "cure" articles is posted every few weeks

and this doesn't sound like it will even lead to a treatment. they can't put nanotubes in just cancerous cells. there is barely a difference between them and regular cells

I can't say much but at my current job I am privy to some information about upcoming "cure" technologies. There are several techniques that can be used to differentiate between cancerous and non cancerous cells and technologies that exploit them are closer to being used than most people realize. Their effectiveness on a large and commercial scale is still up in the air.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
My view for a while has been that nanotechnology will ultimately be the way to really combat disease. The biological approach is just primitive by comparison. We have a much better grasp of the knowledge necessary to manufacture and program nanobots to destroy disease and repair cells than we do the molecular biology required to do the same thing.

I have to disagree with the second part. There are zero nanobots that can destroy disease and repair cells. They don't exist outside of theory. Molecular biology has cured diseases and saved lives and currently is the only extant method for any sort of gene therapy or cell repair.

True, but nanotechnology and related fields haven't been around very long. However, they are growing at a much faster rate than the biological sciences. My prediction is that eventually the curves will cross and nanotechnology will overtake the biological. I've had this discussion with a guy that has a Ph.D. in molecular biology and does drug testing research, and FWIW, he agreed with me.

Well, if it matters, I have a Ph.D. in molecular biology also...

BTW, I'm all in favor of funding for nanotech approaches to biological problems, but I've seen dozens of cures for cancer hyped to the moon, and very very few actually meet with any success, so I tend to be skeptical. But I do think it's worth trying!

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Jassi

Originally posted by: noob in a box
within reach of the next century's technology. one of these "cure" articles is posted every few weeks

and this doesn't sound like it will even lead to a treatment. they can't put nanotubes in just cancerous cells. there is barely a difference between them and regular cells

I can't say much but at my current job I am privy to some information about upcoming "cure" technologies. There are several techniques that can be used to differentiate between cancerous and non cancerous cells and technologies that exploit them are closer to being used than most people realize. Their effectiveness on a large and commercial scale is still up in the air.

You can do a Southern blot, you can use pcr to amplify and sequence portions of DNA, they can often be distinguished morphologically if you have them stained and under a microscope, if there are tumor specific antigens you can use antibodies, you can see which cells divide the quickest and assume the fastest growing ones are cancerous, you can do a metaphase spread and look for aberrant chromosomes, in some cases there are metabolic differences...

So, yes, there are lots of ways to distinguish them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are more alike than different. Some cancer cells are thought to differ from their normal counterpart by one single genetic change, many by only two. Given a genome size of 10^9 base pairs of DNA, two changes is a needle in a haystack.

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Well, if it matters, I have a Ph.D. in molecular biology also...

BTW, I'm all in favor of funding for nanotech approaches to biological problems, but I've seen dozens of cures for cancer hyped to the moon, and very very few actually meet with any success, so I tend to be skeptical. But I do think it's worth trying!

Oh, I'm sure there's all sorts of embellishment happening. Gotta pull in that grant money. Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not trying to diminish the biology aspect. I'm sure it will be critical for success of any nanotechnological approach. My point is that I think the nanotech approach is simpler in a sense. You don't have to worry as much about understanding the incredibly complex chemical and molecular processes needed to develop drugs or therapies. It reduces the problem to more of a mechanical/physical one, which is much easier. It's the difference between finding the right herbicide to kill a weed versus yanking it out of the ground.