If you've ever had a weight problem the title of this post might be the full extent of the advise you got from your doctor:

"Mr. Gordon, you're overweight. For the sake of your health, you should drop some pounds."

"Agreed. Any suggestions on how to do that?"

"Sure. Watch what you eat and get more exercise."

I've had nearly that exact conversation three times with three different doctors in the last 15 years. They say, "diet and exercise" and smile as if they've revealed some great secret.

To be fair to doctors in general I should mention that Phil has had a different medical experience. Last year he lost weight under a doctor's supervision. He chronicled that experience here at The Speculist.

And to be fair to my doctors specifically, "diet and exercise" isn't bad advise. Certainly, getting bad advise is a possibility. Doctors could prescribe amphetamines or (in the recent past) the heart-damaging drug Fen-Phen. They could also recommend surgery that for most is not a good idea.

Of course most adults know that diet and exercise is the best way to lose weight. And yet we're fat. If "diet and exercise" was all the information we needed, there wouldn't be an obesity epidemic in this country. The problem is that not every diet and exercise program is equal. So, what works best?

What follows is my best answer.

Continue reading "Diet and Exercise" »

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 02:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Wow, this is great news:

An extraordinary new scientific study, which for the first time documents marked improvement in Alzheimer’s disease within minutes of administration of a therapeutic molecule, has just been published in the Journal of Neuroinflammation.

They inject the drug entranercept in the spinal fluid and minutes later the patient is better.

I've watched as an elderly loved one faded with Alzheimer's disease. It's a heart breaking and frustrating disease. There are moments of clarity when the victim is able to respond more normally. Its almost like they are intoxicated - still there - but unreachable.

The reason this drug is thought to work sheds light on the disease. A molecule called "TNF" (tumor necrosis factor-alpha) regulates neural activity so its an essential part of brain function. But the problem with Alzheimer patients is that they have too much TNF.

Entranercept binds with the excess TNF and the patient improves at once. The TNF intoxication is lifted.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 01:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I didn't do a New Phil post this week. There will be a new one on Saturday covering the past two weeks. Those who have been following my weight-loss and muscle-building adventures know that I'm not afraid to try new things in pursuit of my goals -- things like getting up at 5 AM so I can swing a sledgehammer for 90 minutes, for example.

However, the overall objective has been to make slow and permanent changes in what I'm composed of and how I behave. It's primarily for that reason that I won't be sampling the new weight-loss wonder drug, alli. However, even if I were trying to lose weight fast, I think I would shy away from that stuff.

A link to an explanation follows. A little heads up here -- if you're offended by frank (very frank) scatological references, don't go there. Otherwise, enjoy.

Okay, then. Why I won't be trying out the new miracle weight loss treatment.

Continue reading "The Lengths I Won't Go To" »

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 06:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

University of Michigan researcher Dr. James Baker has developed a nanoparticle called a dendrimer that is (pick your metaphor) either a Trojan Horse for cancer, or the hook needed to go fishing for cancer.

Dendrimers can be baited in a variety of ways. Since Dr. Baker knew that cancer cells have a voracious appetite for folic-acid, he attached that vitamin to the dendrimer particle.

Each dendrimer has more than a hundred molecular "hooks" on its surface. To five or six of these, Baker connects folic-acid molecules. Because folic acid is a vitamin, most cells in the body have proteins on their surfaces that bind to it. But many cancer cells have significantly more of these receptors than normal cells. Baker links an anticancer drug to other branches of the dendrimer; when cancer cells ingest the folic acid, they consume the deadly drugs as well.

Anticancer drugs are highly toxic to all cells, not just cancer. Often, particularly with frail patients, chemotherapy can be "kill or cure" treatment. But with this development, patients could be given a fraction of the toxic medicine that would have been required before. A much larger percentage of the medicine gets into cancer cells because cancer hoovers up the body's folic-acid supply.

Simple and elegant.

We linked to a story on this development last June, but it appears that Dr. Baker has been very busy the last ten months.

The approach is versatile. Baker has laden the dendrimers with molecules that glow under MRI scans, which can reveal the location of a cancer. And he can hook different targeting molecules and drugs to the dendrimers to treat a variety of tumors. He plans to begin human trials later this year, potentially on ovarian or head and neck cancer.

...

Baker has already begun work on a modular system in which dendrimers adorned with different drugs, imaging agents, or cancer-targeting molecules could be "zipped together." Ultimately, doctors might be able to create personalized combinations of nanomedicines by simply mixing the contents of vials of dendrimers.

Such a system is at least 10 years away from routine use, but Baker's basic design could be approved for use in patients in as little as five years. That kind of rapid progress is a huge part of what excites doctors and researchers about nanotechnology's medical potential. "It will completely revolutionize large branches of medicine," says Ferrari [a professor of internal medicine, engineering, and materials science at Ohio State University].

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 01:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In today's Guardian:

A type of rubbery material based on the protein that helps fleas jump could be used to repair damaged arteries, Nature reports today.

But it gets better. Kurzweil AI spins it like this:

Future versions of the material could be used to make resilient human spare parts, including spinal discs and artificial arteries.

How about giving us knees that would allow us to jump distances proportional to what fleas do? If I had a set of those, I could jump to work every day. Okay, maybe it would take three or four hops, but still.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 08:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Here's a good illustration of how fast technology is moving: My "Future Healing" post is three days old - and it's already a past-future.

In my story I imagined a doctor locating a stem cell line that is a near match for his patient. This match was a special type of stem cell now called a CBE (cord-blood-derived embryonic-like stem cells).

Our hero orders these CBE's and installs a DNA patch to make it a better, "practically perfect" match for his patient. He then coaxes these patched stem cells into becoming brain stem cells that can be used by his patient's brain to replace damaged neurons.

None of those steps were products of my imagination. This is real research going on right now (as the hyperlinks within the original post show).

But why would our hero go to the trouble of finding a near match at some distant location, ordering it, and then patching it if this technology is available?

Scientists for the first time have turned ordinary skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells -- without having to use human eggs or make new human embryos in the process, as has always been required in the past, a Harvard research team announced yesterday.

From hard sci-fi to past future in three days. Didn't this use to take decades?

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 09:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Scientists have long been dissatisfied with using viruses to deliver gene therapy. It's dangerous for the patient, expensive, and impossible to scale up for widespread pharmaceutical purposes. Viral vectors have been useful for experimentation, but have shown little promise in the treatment of patients.

There has to be a better way. And scientists at the University at Buffalo may have found it. Using a form of nanoengineered silicon they're calling ORMOSIL (amino-functionalized organically modified silica) these scientists delivered genes into the brains of living mice.

A key advantage of the UB team's nanoparticle is its surface functionality, which allows it to be targeted to specific cells, explained Dhruba J. Bharali, Ph.D., a co-author on the paper...

In their first experiment the UB scientists surgically injected an ORMOSIL/DNA complex that targeted the dopamine neurons within the brain.

It worked.

No toxicity associated with the ORMOSIL nanoparticles was observed four weeks after transfection and the efficiency of the transfection equaled or exceeded results with using viral vectors, they say.

Then, using a new optical fiber in vivo imaging technique (CellviZio), developed by Mauna Kea Technologies, Paris, the researchers were able to observe the brain cells expressing transfected genes without having to sacrifice the animal.

Wow. I'm simply blown away by the leap this represents. They've developed a nonviral vector that successfully delivered its DNA load to specifically targeted cells within living animals. Then, they were able to monitor the DNA load doing its job expressing genes, within that living animal. Remarkable. I would have guessed that this sort of development was a decade away.

As if this wasn't enough, the UB team did a follow-up experiment. With another tailored form of ORMOSIL, these researchers activated adult brain stem/progenitor cells within living mice brains. It was the first time that any scientists have proven that these idle adult stem cells can be activated with gene therapy (of any kind - its never been done with viral vectors). It is believed that these activated adult stem cells can replace neurons destroyed by neurodegenerative diseases.

These scientists believe that a library of ORMOSIL nanoparticles can be developed. Each form of ORMOSIL to target a different tissue.

Somebody's getting a Nobel.

If you're keeping score, this news is a big deal because:

1. Virus vectors are dangerous. ORMOSIL did not trigger an immune response or any form of toxicity - the mice were fine a month later.

2. Virus vectors are expensive/impossible to scale up for widespread use in patients. ORMOSIL can be easily synthesized by chemists for widespread use.

3. ORMOSIL worked at least as efficiently as virus (and this is the first generation of this technology).

4. This team has demonstrated an ability to hit their target, twice. And these scientists believe that a library of these molecules can be developed to target any tissue.

5. This wasn't done in a petri dish. This was done in a living mouse.

6. And they were even able to monitor the gene load being expressed within a living brain using CellviZio.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 09:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Researchers at Harvard have built a library of genetic information on kinases - enzymes associated with "proteins, lipids, sugars, nucleosides, and other cellular components." Many different diseases are the result of some malfunction of these enzymes, but most often its cancer.

Greater understanding of the genetic makeup of these enzymes gives drug makers new targets for drug development.

This collection [of genetic information] is unique because clones in the collection represent protein kinases as well as non-protein kinases, are fully sequenced verified, full-length, and can be sub-cloned by recombination based methodologies.

Er...okay. Suffice it to say that this is valuable information that drug manufacturers didn't have before. Harvard accomplished this work by "mining public databases," using "high-throughput cloning" methods, and "automation." My translation: they used the Internet, fast computation, and robots.

All of these tools are on "Mr. Spock's chessboard" - all are subject to exponential improvement over time.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 01:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A year and a half ago Glenn Reynolds reported on research to use peptide nanotubes to:

"...kill bacteria by punching holes in the bacteria's membrane." You might think of these as a sort of mechanical antibiotic...."By controlling the type of peptides used to build the rings, scientists are able to design nanotubes that selectively perforate bacterial membranes without harming the cells of the host... In theory, these nano-bio agents should be far less prone than existing antibiotics to the development of bacterial resistance."

It is hard to imagine a genetic mutation that would allow bacteria to survive a punctured cell membrane.

Today, Wired News reports that Oculus Innovative Sciences is now producing a liquid called Microcyn that kills even drug resistant bacteria.

According to Hoji Alimi, founder and president of Oculus, the ion-hungry water creates an osmotic potential that ruptures the cell walls of single-celled organisms, and out leaks the cell's cytoplasm. Because multicellular organisms -- people, animals, plants -- are tightly bound, the water is prevented from surrounding the cells, and there is no negative impact.

Though I'm not sure why, Microcyn also is effective against viruses and spores. And unlike with nanotubes, there is no concern with environmental impact.

This is not a pie in the sky development. Oculus has announced FDA 510K clearance of Microcyn technology.

Dermacynâ„¢ Wound Care, the first Microcynâ„¢ Technology product for human use in the United States, will be available to physicians in June 2005 by phoning 1(800) 759-9305.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Derek Lowe emailed Glenn Reynolds the following:

Had a look at that Speculist/Wired News piece, followed by a perusal of the Oculus web site. Not too many details there for a chemist, so I searched for their IP, and found their patent WO03048421, which shows up assigned to Oculus in its European filing. That gave me more to go on.

I'm not all that impressed. This seems to have very little relation to the nanotube punctures that you wrote about a few months ago, despite the Speculist lead-in, and the Oculus PR doesn't make much sense, either. Their statement in the Wired article is:

the ion-hungry water creates an osmotic potential that ruptures the cell walls of single-celled organisms, and out leaks the cell's cytoplasm. Because multicellular organisms -- people, animals, plants -- are tightly bound, the water is prevented from surrounding the cells, and there is no negative impact

Which is semi-gibberish. Talking about "ion-hungry" water that kills through osmosis makes it sound like it's some sort of ultrapure stuff, but their water has plenty of ions in it, since the electrolysis that produces it makes hypochlorous acid, hydrochloric acid, and so on. Those are surely the source of its bacteria-killing properties, which would then be done through good ol' toxic chemistry. And that "tightly bound" stuff isn't too compelling, either - so it'll just mess up your cells that it can get to, is my take on that, and won't touch bacteria that are embedded in a matrix or biofilm.

And the possibility for dosing this stuff in vivo is zero, by the way, for those same reasons.

Not to be overly defensive, but the title to this post is "More Than One Way To Skin A Bacterium." Of course there is no relation to what Glenn reported in 2003 and Microcyn, EXCEPT that both developments would work by breaching the cell membranes of bacteria while leave the cells of the body untouched. Literally two methods to skin a bacterium. Get it?

:-)

What is curious about the Oculus claim (and this should have raised some doubt with me earlier) is that this fluid is said to be effective against viruses. Okay, but by what mechanism? Viruses don't have cell casings.

I'm not ready to write off the Oculus fluid as snake oil yet. But I'll be careful in my enthusiasm.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 02:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

The Speculist reported last May that longevity researchers are excited about the enzyme SIR2. This molecule appears to be involved in the regulation of gene expression that could help prevent cancer and damage associated with aging.

Now we learn that one of mankind's greatest biological enemies uses SIR2 against us.

...throughout its lifetime, P. falciparum [a form of Malaria] continually changes the version of a protein known as PfEMP1 that it deposits on the surface of infected cells. By the time the immune system learns to recognize the protein and starts making antibodies against it, the parasite has switched to another form of the protein, and the process starts over...

the researchers found that SIR2, another protein, seemed to determine which var gene was active and which were switched off...

Our bodies use SIR2 to our advantage is silencing gene expression, but Malaria uses the same enzyme to be a master of disguise.

This discovery may be an important step forward in the fight against malaria. By genetically engineering malaria that lacks SIR2 (a step that these scientists have already taken), it is believed that the human immune system can learn to recognize all potential forms that the disease might take.

This is an effective answer to those who would claim that longevity research is a waste of money. Who would have thought that research into the life span of yeast would contribute to our ability to battle malaria?

Malaria is an old but very deadly enemy. It still kills about 3 million people a year - second only to AIDS. It has been so deadly for so long that sickle cell anemia developed as a Faustian bargain - nature was giving up people with two copies of the sickle cell gene in exchange for malaria protection for people with one copy.

But the old predator has become prey.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Randall Parker raises some interesting questions in reponse to the guidelines proposed for creating a human/mouse chimera:

What I find especially interesting about this report is the reticence to see animals made smarter. What is their motivation for this restriction? Is it that they do not want lab animals made intelligent because then experimentation on them would become too much like experimentation on sentient humans?

Or do they object more generally to modification of other species to make them become as smart as humans? If the latter, what are their reasons for opposing this move? Certainly one can think of reasons to oppose such a development. The human race could find its existence threatened if we genetically engineered some predator species to be as smart as we are. Imagine smart lions and tigers with no empathy for the human species hunting us down to eat. For that matter, imagine genetically engineered human psychopaths with no empathy for the human species. They already occur naturally in smaller numbers. Will some people ever choose to use biotechnology to produce offspring with little or no empathy?

There's no question that the Yuck factor looms large in the setting of these kinds of guidelines. There is something...unsettling about the thought of a mouse that's a little more like a human being than it should be.

But there's something else, here. The question is -- if we can make a mouse as smart as a human, should we do it? If we're only doing so in order to perform experiments on the poor creature, then the answer is obviously no. But otherwise?

There, I'm less certain. Maybe a mouse would like to be smart like Stuart Little or Reepicheep in the Narnia books. Or maybe it would a tortured soul like Algernon, or Rodney in Susan Palwick's The Fate of Mice. Maybe mice would rather not know about their mortality or anticipate future sufferings or remember past hardships. Maybe they evolved the way they did because a mousey life is their idea of the perfect existence.

Perhaps we would play the role of the Serpent in the Mouse Garden of Eden. But unlike the Serpent, we wouldn't just tempt the mouse into advanced knowledge of his condition -- we would force it on him. That would be a pretty nasty thing to do.

On the other hand, if there were a mouse of human level intelligence and we were to ask her whether she would like to continue as she is or go back to being like her unmodified brethren, which do you think she would pick?

Surely intelligence is more of a gift than it is a curse. But of course I think that. I'm a human. Whether smart mice would see us as the Serpent or as Prometheus remains to be determined.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Glenn Reynolds reports this afternoon (here and here) that his wife Helen needs an implantable pacemaker/cardioverter. A pacemaker regulates a heart that is beating too slowly. I believe a cardioverter regulates a heart that beats too quickly.

Glenn remarks that it's bad news she needs the device, but good news that it's available. Absolutely. A similar device has literally kept my father-in-law alive for four years now, but he wasn't excited about needing it.

It's remarkable how routine this procedure has become.

Most often, defibrillators are implanted in a surgical procedure, with an incision made in the upper part of the chest. Local anesthesia is frequently used and the surgery is often an outpatient procedure.

Helen has our prayers and well wishes. Get well soon!

More information here.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 02:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

FuturePundit Randall Parker has the scoop on a new gene therapy that selectively kills only cancer cells:

This approach is important because cancer can not be cured without the development of therapeutic agents that have far greater ability than current conventional chemical chemotherapy agents to selectively target cancer cells while leaving normal cells unharmed. The use of molecular switches that will flip on to deliver therapies only in cancer cells is going to be one of the major ways that cancer is going to be defeated and perhaps even ultimately the best way. There are two parts to such a therapy. The first is the switching part that detects unique signature patterns in cancer cells to know to activate. The other part is what will get done once the activation of the switch has happened. There are many possibilities for the second part. Imagine, for example, an enzyme that gets synthesized in cancer cells that can metabolize inert chemotherapy compounds into toxic forms. Or imagine a protein made from the switch that effectively punches a hole in a cell. Or perhaps the switch would turn on a bigger package of genes that would restore normal cell division regulation. The gene package could include a replacement non-mutated p53 cell divisiion regulating gene to replace the mutated p53 genes found in many types of cancer.

Cool. That reference to a "molecular switch" makes me wonder whether some kind of nanotech/gene therapy hybrid might prove effective in fighting cancer. Step One: gene therapy treatment induces throwing of molecular switch to identify cancer cells. Step Two: nanodevice applies gold nanoshell or other destructive treatment to cancer cells, leaving healthy cells completely unharmed.

Might be a winning combination.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 09:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Researchers have found a potential new source of embryonic stems cells, eggs that have been coaxed into dividing as though fertilized:

A trick that persuades human eggs to divide as if they have been fertilised could provide a source of embryonic stem cells that sidesteps ethical objections to existing techniques. It could also be deployed to improve the success rate of IVF.

The tricked eggs divide for four or five days until they reach 50 to 100 cells – the blastocyst stage. These blastocysts should in theory yield stem cells, but because they are parthenogenetic – produced from the egg only – they cannot be viewed as a potential human life, says Karl Swann of the University of Wales College of Medicine in Cardiff, UK.

“This could eliminate one of the main sources of ethical controversy in this research,” says Bob Lanza, head of research at the cloning company Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts.

This follows close on the heels of news from Korea that researchers have used stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood to enable a woman paralyzed from the waist down to walk. I have argued for some time now that the best way forward in the stem-cell debate is to find a win-win situation, something that provides the benefits but avoids the ethical snares. We appear to be getting closer to such a solution (or to a set of such solutions.)

(via Kurzweil AI)

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 06:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Korea continues to be a source of amazing developments in the field of regenerative medicine:

A South Korean woman paralyzed for 20 years is walking again after scientists say they repaired her damaged spine using stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood.

Hwang Mi-Soon, 37, had been bedridden since damaging her back in an accident two decades ago.

Stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood are not completely undifferentiated like embryonic stem cells. They are described as being "multipotent," meaning that they "are capable of forming a limited number of specialised cell types." So these cells may not have quite the potential of embryonic stem cells, but they have apparently already made good on one of the more outrageous promises made on behalf of embryonic stem cells. And we learned not too long ago that expectant mothers have been receiving this kind of stem cell therapy all along. Perhaps most importantly, we can start harvesting and doing work with these cells now, and skip the tiresome debate.

After all, there is an abundant supply of umbilical cord blood, and no embryo or fetus need be harmed in collecting it. One of the sticking points in the current debate is that federal funds may be used for research on only a few lines of embryonic stem cells. But even if these restrictions were removed, there will still be vastly more potential cell lines to be derived from umbilical cord blood than there would ever be from rejected embryos. Every pregnant woman is potentially a source.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 02:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Heart disease kills many people who had no idea that they were sick. More than 300,000 people die every year in the United States from sudden cardiac arrest. Most of these people had no idea they had heart disease.

For the best chance of survival from SCA caused by VF, a defibrillator should be used within 5 minutes. Yet, less than 1 in 20 people survive largely because a defibrillator does not arrive in time.

That's the bad news, the good news is that more people will be saved as defibrillators become common.

This model, the Philips HeartStart, requires no training to operate. The unit itself will prompt you to remove the victim's shirt, place an electrode on the right upper chest, another electrode on the lower left rib cage, and then the unit will monitor the heart and decide if a shock is necessary.

If the unit determines that CPR is needed, it will walk the user through those steps.

So that you won't have a dead battery at the worst time, it performs a daily self-test. It doesn't call 911 for you [note to Philips: it should], but this product is a remarkable advancement in home safety equipment.

The price of $1,500 is still prohibitive for many. But like other technology, prices are coming down while the products improve.

This gadget is the perfect synthesis of two of our mottos at The Speculist: Things are getting "better all the time," and "live to see it."

Via Instapundit.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 07:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Phil has linked to and commented on several stories in the last couple of days that have a common theme:

• Brain Juice [electrical currents enhancing brain function]

• Ho Hum [monkey controlling a robot with its brain]

• The Brain Fix [electronic brain prosthesis]

• Brain tissue transplants

Even though most of these treatments would only be used on diseased or injured brains, some ethical issues must be considered.

If a patient has a stroke that damages a portion of her brain, will she remain the same person if she is treated with a brain prosthesis or brain tissue transplant?

Objectively there is little to argue about. If my family member has suffered a stroke and can't speak or take care of herself, and if a brain tissue transplant could reverse that, then the post-op person is more like the person I knew before the stroke.

But what is the subjective experience of the patient? Is her personhood violated by the treatment? Certainly the stoke or neurodegenerative disease violated the patient first. But there are many instances in medicine where doctors choose not to treat rather than risk additional harm.

This problem is akin to issues science fiction fans have discussed for years. If my memories and personality are copied into a computer or into another body, have I, personally, been moved? Am I live or Memorex?

Or if the "transporter" from Star Trek can take apart my atoms, transport them through space, and reassemble me perfectly on some alien world, is that still me? Maybe. But, what if - as Star Trek suggests - only the digital information of my pattern is transported. My actual atoms are left behind to replicate Hot Earl Grey tea or something. Is that still me?

I don't know, but I certainly understand Dr. McCoy's aversion to the transporter.

The ethical problem with brain prosthesis and tissue replacement is different from these fictional dilemmas only in degree. A brain prosthesis or tissue transplant might simply be thought of as an aid for the remaining brain, but it just as logically could be said to be "new brain." Where exactly does "self" reside? Does "self" remain in the damaged brain that the prosthesis or new tissue is aiding, or is it within the "new brain?" Could it be a both?

There is no easy answer to that. But I know that if I had a stroke and was told that the only way I could walk again or speak would be to undergo a such a procedure, I'm sure I'd agree to the treatment.

This seems to be the best solution to the problem. Our decisions have an impact on who we are anyway, so there seems little reason to question a patient's decision regarding such care - provided they are capable of making the decision.

Obviously someone will have to judge whether the patient is capable of understanding the treatment and making the decision. Should that be the doctor or the family? Its time to update my living will forms.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 09:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This very big story broke late last week:

The world’s first brain prosthesis has passed the first stages of live testing.

The microchip, designed to model a part of the brain called the hippocampus, has been used successfully to replace a neural circuit in slices of rat brain tissue kept alive in a dish. The prosthesis will soon be ready for testing in animals.

The device could ultimately be used to replace damaged brain tissue which may have been destroyed in an accident, during a stroke, or by neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease. It is the first attempt to replace central brain regions dealing with cognitive functions such as learning or speech.

In addition to treating degenerative conditions, brain prostheses will eventually be used to enhance learning and skills for everyone. I'm personally looking forward to the hardware upgrade that will make me able to play the piano or speak Italian.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 09:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

They're looking into it:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Harvard University scientists have asked the university's ethical review board for permission to produce cloned human embryos for disease research, potentially becoming the first researchers in the nation to wade into a divisive area of study that has become a presidential campaign issue.

"We want to find new ways to study and hopefully cure diseases," said Harvard biologist Douglas Melton, a senior researcher who, along with a colleague, has applied for permission to do the work.

Prepare for the inevitable hype and hysteria. There are serious ethical issues that need to be worked out in order to create a workable framework to allow for therapeutic cloning. Unfortunately, those issues are consistently missed in favor of Hollywood imagery.

We need regulations that prevent reproductive cloning — that is the development of a viable living cloned person. Reproductive cloning is a different fight for a different day. (Or century.) There should be strict guidelines as to how far in its development cycle an embryo should be allowed to progress before cells are harvested from it. And there should be guidelines as to who can access the stem cell lines once created and why. Stephen shared some serious thoughts on these issues a while back.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely that we'll get much discussion on these issues in the mainstream media. Vivid imagery of body-part banks and invading clone hordes make much better newspaper copy.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 09:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's a breakthrough worth noting:

Scientists have shown they can turn off a cancer-causing gene in mice, offering hope of new treatments for cancer patients.

The Stanford University team used a common antibiotic to turn off a gene called Myc, which is known to trigger cancer.

Mice remained cancer free for as long as they took the drug. The drug also turned cancer cells back to normal.

That part about turning cancer cells back to normal is especially exciting. And it is worth noting that this research, which had its focus on liver cancer, may have some positive implications for the treatment of breast, bowel, and prostate cancer, all of which originate in the epithelial cells.

Interestingly, some of the "normal" cells turned back to a cancerous state after the antibiotic treatment was stopped. This may help to account for the return of cancer which often occurs to those who have received chemotherapy.

The article continues:

Dr Elaine Vickers, science information officer for Cancer Research UK, said: "The Myc gene is known to be overactive in many types of cancer.

"Estimates suggest that the gene may contribute to as many as one in seven cancer deaths.

So we may could be looking at potential treatments that will help one in seven cancer patients. Very encouraging, indeed.

via GeekPress

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 09:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A study from UK researches has shown that dogs could be used to help diagnose urinary tract cancer.

The authors trained six dogs of different breeds for 7 months to discriminate between urine from patients with bladder cancer and urine from those without cancer…

After training, each dog was offered seven urine samples--one bladder cancer sample and six comparison samples from individuals of the same sex…

Each dog underwent the test nine times. Altogether, the dogs correctly selected bladder cancer urine on 22 out of 54 occasions, an average success rate of 41% compared to 14% expected by chance alone…

Commenting on the paper, statistician Tim Cole from the Institute of Child Health in London notes that the study was carefully designed. "On balance the results are unambiguous," he writes in an accompanying commentary. "Dogs can be trained to recognize and flag an unusual smell in the urine of bladder cancer patients."

One sample that was thought to be disease-free kept testing positive with the dogs. The researchers went back and reexamined the volunteer. The volunteer had kidney cancer.

Last November it was announced that drug dogs might one day be made obsolete by "dog-on-a-chip" technology. This computer chip would, in effect, give police officers the benefit of a drug dog in a convenient PDA package.

Now that it has been proven that urinary cancer can be detected with dogs, can a medical version of the "dog-on-a-chip" be far behind?

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 12:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Elizabeth M. Whelan and Henry I. Miller have penned an important essay on the stem cell debate over on Tech Central Station. It would seem that the relentless "Us vs. Them" mentality of the American political landscape has created (or at least encouraged) a host of misconceptions about both embryonic and adult stem cell research. Whelan and Miller do an excellent job of summarizing the inaccurate — and perhaps more dangerous, not-quite-accurate — notions that are floating around out there, and they provide a realistic picture of where the research is now and where it might yet go. They conclude with a simple plea:

We are not so naive as to expect that this continuing debate will lead to a convergence of views, but we would plead for a greater degree of candor, clarity and consistency in discourse. Given the stakes, is that too much to ask?

As that fellow in Tennessee might say: Indeed.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 09:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

This is pretty cool:

In the fight against cancer, some scientists are thinking small. Really, really small.

The National Cancer Institute launches a five-year, $144 million project today to investigate using nanotechnology, the science of building devices on the atomic level, to fight cancer.

The treatments that will be looked at include, among other approaches, the use of gold nanoshells that "cook" tumor cells to death and nanoparticles that deliver chemotherapy on a cell-by-cell basis. We've been tracking these developments over the past year (here and here, for example). It's gratifying to see these lines of research get additional funding. Moreover, with the blessing of the National Cancer Institute, it would seem that nanomedicine is well on its way to being mainstream.

(via Kurzweil AI)

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 07:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The human brain remains a mystery, in spite of the major strides in understanding that we've made in recent years. Consider this report on the use of hypnosis to relieve the suffering of cancer patients:

Hypnosis can relieve suffering and improve the quality of life of cancer patients, researchers said on Thursday.

Although it has been used to help people to give up smoking, lose weight and overcome phobias, its real therapeutic potential is still untapped, they believe.

Dr Christina Liossi, of the University of Wales in Swansea, said there is medical evidence that hypnosis helps to relieve the depression, nausea, vomiting and pain suffered by cancer patients.

There have also been suggestions that hypnosis could increase survival in patients with the disease, but she added there is not enough evidence to support them.

Liossi goes on to say that it has been established that hypnosis can affect the immune system, although unfortunately, the article does not cite any references for this. It's one thing to say that hypnosis might alleviate pain. We all know that pain is, truly, "all in your head." But the suggestion that hypnosis might increase cancer survivability or that it can somehow work directly on the immune system seems an entirely different proposition. Hypnosis almost begins to sound kind of spooky or magical.

Of course, there's no reason to interpret such results that way. If the only physiological effect of hypnosis is pain reduction, that alone could account for greater rates of cancer survivability and a strengthened immune system. A body that endures less pain is a body that has been subjected to lower levels of stress, and therefore has additional strength to work through the course of a disease. It seems likely that a stronger, less-taxed body would also have a better immune system.

It's surprising that we don't hear more about a treatment option that offers such benefits. One of the researchers, Professor John Gruzelier of Imperial College London, suggests that the silence has a simple explanation: we don't know how hypnosis works. The medical establishment is understandably shy about dealing with treatments that seem to work, but that can't be explained.

Gruzelier is using brain-imaging techniques to study the changes that occur within the frontal lobe when an individual is hypnotized. Here's hoping that his work helps make the brain a little less mysterious.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 09:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Phil has linked to and commented on several stories in the last couple of days that have a common theme:

• Brain Juice [electrical currents enhancing brain function]

• Ho Hum [monkey controlling a robot with its brain]

• The Brain Fix [electronic brain prosthesis]

• Brain tissue transplants

Even though most of these treatments would only be used on diseased or injured brains, some ethical issues must be considered.

If a patient has a stroke that damages a portion of her brain, will she remain the same person if she is treated with a brain prosthesis or brain tissue transplant?

Objectively there is little to argue about. If my family member has suffered a stroke and can't speak or take care of herself, and if a brain tissue transplant could reverse that, then the post-op person is more like the person I knew before the stroke.

But what is the subjective experience of the patient? Is her personhood violated by the treatment? Certainly the stoke or neurodegenerative disease violated the patient first. But there are many instances in medicine where doctors choose not to treat rather than risk additional harm.

This problem is akin to issues science fiction fans have discussed for years. If my memories and personality are copied into a computer or into another body, have I, personally, been moved? Am I live or Memorex?

Or if the "transporter" from Star Trek can take apart my atoms, transport them through space, and reassemble me perfectly on some alien world, is that still me? Maybe. But, what if - as Star Trek suggests - only the digital information of my pattern is transported. My actual atoms are left behind to replicate Hot Earl Grey tea or something. Is that still me?

I don't know, but I certainly understand Dr. McCoy's aversion to the transporter.

The ethical problem with brain prosthesis and tissue replacement is different from these fictional dilemmas only in degree. A brain prosthesis or tissue transplant might simply be thought of as an aid for the remaining brain, but it just as logically could be said to be "new brain." Where exactly does "self" reside? Does "self" remain in the damaged brain that the prosthesis or new tissue is aiding, or is it within the "new brain?" Could it be a both?

There is no easy answer to that. But I know that if I had a stroke and was told that the only way I could walk again or speak would be to undergo a such a procedure, I'm sure I'd agree to the treatment.

This seems to be the best solution to the problem. Our decisions have an impact on who we are anyway, so there seems little reason to question a patient's decision regarding such care - provided they are capable of making the decision.

Obviously someone will have to judge whether the patient is capable of understanding the treatment and making the decision. Should that be the doctor or the family? Its time to update my living will forms.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 09:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Researchers may have isolated (or may be close to isolating) the gene that determines susceptibility to lung cancer:

The Genetic Epidemiology of Lung Cancer Consortium (GELCC) examined 52 families who had at least three first-degree family members affected by lung, throat or laryngeal cancer. Of these 52 families, 36 had affected members in at least two generations. Using 392 known genetic markers, which are DNA sequences that are known to be common sites of genetic variation, the researchers generated and then compared the alleles (the different variations each gene can take) of all affected and non-affected family members who were willing to participate in the study.

First off, this is good news because it should provide some additional impetus for some people not to smoke. As the article explains:

Another interesting discovery the team made involved the effects of smoking on cancer risk for carriers and non-carriers of the predicted familial lung cancer gene. They found that in non-carriers, the more they smoked, the greater their risk of cancer. In carriers, on the other hand, any amount of smoking increased lung cancer risk. These findings suggest that smoking even a small amount can lead to cancer for individuals with inherited susceptibility.

Sure, many will argue that you would have to be crazy to smoke, anyway. Maybe the knowledge that you carry this gene would be enough to scare a long-time smoker into quitting; maybe not. But you would really have to be crazy to know that you carry this gene and go ahead and start smoking anyway.

Additionally, this news suggests a possible path to gene therapy treatments that could be used to prevent, maybe one day even cure, lung cancer. Great stuff.

Hat tip: M104 member and co-blogger Kathy Hanson

Posted by Phil at July 27, 2004 03:30 PM

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 10:14 AM | Permalink

FuturePundit Randall Parker reports that pregnant women often receive stem-cell therapy from the children they are carrying. Not only that, mothers (past and present) may turn out to be one of the best sources for fetal stem cells:

It is possible that many years after a pregnancy there are no longer cells in the mother's body that are fetal and capable of becoming all cell types. But a better point at which to try to catch fetal cells from the blood stream of women would be while they are still pregnant or perhaps shortly after giving birth. If fully pluripotent stem cells can be isolated from the blood of pregnant women then this may well provide a source for such cells that will not raise religious hackles.

Randall notes a certain irony:

A confirmation of this result poses what seems to me an ethical problem for the religious opponents of embryonic stem cell research. If developing embryos effectively are donating human embryonic stem cells (hESC) to mothers and literally doing cell therapy to mothers then this natural process is doing something that at least some hESC therapy opponents consider to be morally repugnant.

It will be interesting to see where the various hESC research opponents come down on this result. Will they oppose the extraction of embryonic stem cells from a mother's blood while she is pregnant. If so, on what moral basis?

My guess is that a large fraction of the hESC research opponents will decide that extraction of hESC from a mother's blood is morally acceptable. No fetus will be killed by the extraction. The cells so extracted are not cells that would go on to become a complete new human life. If a sizable portion of the religious hESC opponents can be satisfied by this approach for acquiring hESC then Bianchi's research may well lead to a method to get hESC that will open the gates to a much larger effort to develop therapies based on hESC.

Read the whole thing, including the comments. One reader observes that the opponents of stem cell research may spin this into a victory for their side, which might put the future of therapeutic cloning in jeopardy. This may be. On the other hand, if a means of acquiring embryonic stem cells can be developed that is acceptable to both sides of the debate, who's to say that a mutually agreeable form of cloning (or a subsitute procedure providing the same benefits) can't be developed?

One thing is for sure: it will prove a lot easier to "win" the stem cell debate by coming up with a solution that both sides like than it would have been to get one side to agree that we should walk away, or the other side to agree that it's okay to kill an embryo. There's a lot to be said for the win-win scenario.

Original Comments

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 06:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's a breakthrough worth noting:

Scientists have shown they can turn off a cancer-causing gene in mice, offering hope of new treatments for cancer patients. The Stanford University team used a common antibiotic to turn off a gene called Myc, which is known to trigger cancer. Mice remained cancer free for as long as they took the drug. The drug also turned cancer cells back to normal.

That part about turning cancer cells back to normal is especially exciting. And it is worht noting that this research, which had its focus on liver cancer, may have some positive implications for the treatment of breast, bowel, and prostate cancer, all of which originate in the epithelial cells.

Interestingly, some of the "normal" cells turned back to a cancerous state after the antibiotic treatment was stopped. This may help to account for the return of cancer which often occurs to those who have received chemotherapy.

The article continues:

Dr Elaine Vickers, science information officer for Cancer Research UK, said: "The Myc gene is known to be overactive in many types of cancer.

"Estimates suggest that the gene may contribute to as many as one in seven cancer deaths.

So we may could be looking at potential treatments that will help one in seven cancer patients. Very encouraging, indeed.

via GeekPress

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 09:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)