1. Comment #422562 by hogposh on October 8, 2009 at 12:25 pm

Oh those crazy canucks!!! They rub our faces with universal health care and now this!!!

Other Comments by hogposh

2. Comment #422568 by A on October 8, 2009 at 12:40 pm

And here was me thinking these kinds of breakthroughs would come through the church !?

After all they have god for guidance and to say nothing of the healing power of intercessory prayer ?

And yet again it's those scientists with their scientism who are once again delivering mankind from Yahweh's all loving pathologies ?

I am confused now.

Other Comments by A

3. Comment #422569 by ateu luso on October 8, 2009 at 12:40 pm

I'm often disappointed at the way science is reported in mainstream media. For several reasons, one of the most important being that it can suggest to lay people that novel/better treatments will be available much earlier that is realistic. The subsequent, and obvious, failure to meet the general public's expectations results in their further distancing from a world they hardly understand. This, in turn, means that less pressure is put on governing bodies to continue providing (paltry) funding for what can be vital research.

This little rant is a little over the top for this specific story, where the main "crime" is erroneous science that the lay person will probably not spot.

I have not had the time to read the Nature paper, but I'm pretty sure the focus will be on the genes affected by the mutations in the metastatic cells, which will provide clues both to the spread of the disease and to novel therapies. Another step, therefore, in the inevitable shift toward personalised care, and therapies that are relevant to each individual.

What can be read on the news piece, however, is that it's surprising that the advanced tumour had more mutations than the original (primary) tumour, because

Until now, it had been assumed that tumours have the same mutations in the DNA sequence of all cells.

This statement is clearly wrong, and it shows a lack of basic biology understanding by someone in the CTV.ca News Staff whom I assume will have some science background. It is well known that tumours are heterogeneous, precisely due to differences in the DNA of the different tumour populations, and it will have surely not come as any surprise to the researching team that more mutations were found in the more advanced tumour (the more de-regulated the tumour cells, the easier it is for mutations to further occur).

Sorry about the long rant, but it's something I've been meaning to get off my chest for some time...

One more step forward for science, always good to hear about them!

Other Comments by ateu luso

4. Comment #422570 by Rosbif on October 8, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Oh that crafty Dog; genetic mutations in the cell division genes. All in His great plan of course.

And the scientists and doctors? Will they be praised in church?

Other Comments by Rosbif

5. Comment #422574 by Absinthius on October 8, 2009 at 1:17 pm

What strikes me time and again when 'public reports' about cancer are made is this: Cancer tends to be described as a single disease. Even breast cancer is in no way one single pathology.

For one, the human breast is made up of much more than one cell type. Each cell type has a potential to be the one who 'started' the cancer. Then, even within the same cell type, there are countless different mutations which may have piled up to give rise to the disfunctional cells.

Here they mapped a specific kind of cancer, of course in general understanding of the processes which may be involved in cancer, this is a very nice breakthrough. Nevertheless, this gives no immediate prospects to 'curing cancer', 'curing breast cancer' or even 'curing a specific form of breast cancer'.

Having said that...

Awesome article!

Other Comments by Absinthius

6. Comment #422580 by mikkala on October 8, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Being Canadian, I have to say it's encouraging to see these types of advancements occuring in my life time, and country.

That said, there is no such a thing as "Canadian Science" and when the media would start portraying that more concisely, the public might realize that many national problems are, more accurately, global problems.

We need a clear picture from our national broadcasters that science is a good way, excuse me, the best way, to solve problems on that scale.

I recently attended Richard's talk in Toronto. A delightful evening full of laughs and intriguing questions, and of course, discussing evolution. Richard seems so much more at ease speaking about his passion, rather than his woes.

It was encouraging as well to be sitting in a theater with 500, or so, like minded individuals, who were nothing less than grateful to have the opportunity, to learn from Richard.

Thank you for coming to Toronto professor! It was a pleasure to hear you speak.

Other Comments by mikkala

7. Comment #422620 by Quine on October 8, 2009 at 4:16 pm

Comment #422569 by ateu luso:

Until now, it had been assumed that tumours have the same mutations in the DNA sequence of all cells.

This statement is clearly wrong, and it shows a lack of basic biology understanding by someone in the CTV.ca News Staff whom I assume will have some science background. It is well known that tumours are heterogeneous, precisely due to differences in the DNA of the different tumour populations, and it will have surely not come as any surprise to the researching team that more mutations were found in the more advanced tumour (the more de-regulated the tumour cells, the easier it is for mutations to further occur).

Indeed. Researchers trying to develop immunotherapy for cancer found this out decades ago when their techniques kept failing to kill the whole cell population. Again, we see the connection between understanding Evolution and understanding important biology such as mutation in neoplasia (cancer).

Other Comments by Quine

8. Comment #422632 by 0strich on October 8, 2009 at 5:14 pm

Yay Canada! We can also lay claim to:

- insulin
- electric stoves
- paper clips
- postit notes
- pacemaker
- snowmobile
- paint roller
- pablum
- washing machine
- electron microscopes
- telephone
- IMAX
- sonar
- television
- standard time
- roller skates
- chocolate bars
- walkie talkies
- McIntosh apple
- basketball
- goalie masks
- snow blowers
- caulking gun
- electric light bulbs

... and most importantly, SUPERMAN!

Other Comments by 0strich

9. Comment #422639 by ateu luso on October 8, 2009 at 5:59 pm

Quine,

That's right. And that's the point, many of the mistakes that abound in news pieces of this sort are easily avoidable, if the writer bothers to inform him(her)self minimally. Because (again assuming a modicum of knowledge in the field they're writing in) in most cases the information has been around for some time, and is well established.

I sometimes think that it's better not to write anything at all than to misinform people. The general knowledge of science is bad enough as it is...

Better still, educate people, then these imbeciles can write all the crap they want, and we'll just call it light entertainment!

Other Comments by ateu luso

10. Comment #422666 by HiDefLoLife on October 8, 2009 at 10:06 pm

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this just a case where researchers submitted multiple samples of cancer cells for genome decoding (presumably to an outside agency)? The results showed different genome patterns (and, according to other posters, rather predictably).

If that's the case, about the only extraordinary thing about this news is that the agency had the money to get the genome decoding accomplished. Am I wrong or too simplistic in my analysis?

Other Comments by HiDefLoLife

11. Comment #422696 by evansmic on October 9, 2009 at 4:12 am

Yay Canada! On top of the Nobel Prize for developing digital photography, our boys(and girls) are advancing the understanding of breast cancer. Kudos!

Other Comments by evansmic

12. Comment #422699 by Scep on October 9, 2009 at 4:31 am

This sounds better:
STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN – A Canadian-born physicist and two Americans have been awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in PHYSICS.

And the Canucks whipped the Habs 7:1 ;-)

Other Comments by Scep

13. Comment #422709 by Roy_H on October 9, 2009 at 5:49 am

Comment #422632 by 0strich on October 8, 2009 at 5:14 pm
"Chocolate Bars" .
Canadian chocolate is by far the worst tasting stuff in the universe.

Other Comments by Roy_H

14. Comment #422718 by ateu luso on October 9, 2009 at 9:03 am

HiDefLoLife,

You are not wrong, but that is indeed a little simplistic. This study made use of the latest technology available for the sequencing of genomes (pretty powerful stuff) to characterise a specific type of breast cancer much more thouroughly than had previously been achieved.

Relevant information about this cancer type has thus been obtained. For example, the identification of the stage at which the mutations appeared will help elucidate their role in the various stages of tumour progression (although for the metastatic population it's not clear whether the mutations were a consequence of the radiotherapy the patient received or were innate changes to the tumour). Also, variant protein sequences have been identified, meaning that the RNA -> protein step did not go as expected for at least 2 important genes.

So this is valuable and relevant info (although not present in the CTV article), and it highlights the need to sequence as thouroughly as possible tumours at an early stage, and, when possible, pre-cancerous lesions, so that genes directly responsible for the progression of a specific tumour type might be found, and eventual therapies adapted to these findings.

Other Comments by ateu luso

15. Comment #422719 by sheepscarer on October 9, 2009 at 9:09 am

Sorry Ostrich

Television and telephone are certainly not Canadian inventions - Scotland probably has greater claim

and plenty of bird and mammal species got there before you on the sonar front

Other Comments by sheepscarer

16. Comment #422722 by PERSON on October 9, 2009 at 10:14 am

"plenty of bird and mammal species got there before you on the sonar front"
Yeah. And planes are so rubbish because birds can already fly.

Other Comments by PERSON

17. Comment #422752 by sornord on October 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm

Comment #422632
AND
Brian Adams
Celine Dion
Bachman Turner Overdrive/The Guess Who
Avril Lavigne

Just kidding, like 'em all

Other Comments by sornord

18. Comment #422761 by Mr. Davies on October 9, 2009 at 8:21 pm

Hey Ostrich! Maybe you need to pound the snow from your ears, Eh?
Light bulbs, Television, & telephones invented by Canuks? Is that like Ensign Checkov telling Spock that Shakespere was a Russian?

I can see goalie masks and snow machines, but the others????

Oh, and Canadian "chocolate' uggggggggg. ;(

Now - basketball.... thats worth a bIG Thanks!

Other Comments by Mr. Davies

19. Comment #422813 by Sarmatae1 on October 10, 2009 at 5:29 am

8. Comment #422632 by 0strich

Trivial Pursuit

Other Comments by Sarmatae1

20. Comment #422822 by sheepscarer on October 10, 2009 at 9:48 am

"plenty of bird and mammal species got there before you on the sonar front"
Yeah. And planes are so rubbish because birds can already fly.

Don't see any planes flapping their wings but high frequency echolocation and send-receive facility is essentially the same. In case you haven't noticed - planes use technologies not seen in the natural world such as jet engines and propellers.

Other Comments by sheepscarer