Comments on: MS and the Promise of The Genome Project

By: surfiemic

surfiemic — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:04:51 +0000

Dynamic as in non-linear; moving beyond obsession with linear cause and effect, beyond the idea that complex systems exist as the sum of their parts… Another way of looking at things, which accepts that most processes exhibit circular causality.

Not in anyway implying that research other than this is not creative/dynamic/brilliant, just that, it has it’s limitations – naturally both aspects of the coin must be polished.

By: rezistnzisfutl

rezistnzisfutl — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 18:21:19 +0000

“Unless it is complemented by some dynamic thinking…”

What kind of dynamic thinking are you referring to?

By: surfiemic

surfiemic — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 11:03:27 +0000

Another example of how reductionist science can be interesting, exciting and help with understanding ofcourse – but fail to have much of an impact when its comes to putting things together and understanding the whole complexity of such diseases. The basis of such research is still overly reliant on the o so outdated linear cause and effect model of science ‘this gene does this’ mentality. Unless it is complemented by some dynamic thinking, we will reduce ourselves to oblivion! Thank god for the couple of refreshing truly forward thinking neuroscientists in my field of motor control, they give me a reason to stay in this crazy world!

By: s

Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:06:06 +0000

Wholly agree with daedalus2u comment.

By: SteveA

SteveA — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:55:57 +0000

Draal: “Is it really known that the public has a vague sense of unfulfillment regarding the HGP? If surveyed, would the majority of the public even know what the human genome project is?”

I’d tend to agree. It’s true that the Human Genome project was hyped up as a Holy Grail in some circles (mostly by know-nothing reporters). But I’d guess that 95%+ of the population regard it as just background ‘sciency-type’ stuff that isn’t going to do anything that dramatic very quickly.

By: PharmD28

PharmD28 — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:52:52 +0000

“BTW, there was a recent success with gene therapy in treating leukemia – they altered the genes of t-cells to hunt down and destroy cancer cells and it worked!”

Worked in 3 patients right? Not sure if this may be another exampmle of media hype: “new cure” is the headline, but the final paragraph may say something like “well, but there is still much uncertainty and more research is warranted”….

What a cool treatment though – simply amazing – hopefully it is replicated and has similarly awesome results without killing folk

By: Draal

Draal — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:57:11 +0000

Captain nit-picker here.

Today we can do it for about 10,000 dollars, and the price continues to fall geometrically (about half every 9 months).

Depends on the size of the genome. This data applies to re-sequencing a human sized genome. If the genome is brand new, additional downstream data processing is required and increases the cost. In addition, the drop in cost has been much faster than Moore’s Law (www dot genome.gov/sequencingcosts/).

And an observation regarding writing style:

By all accounts the HGP was a huge success. But 8 years after the completion of the first human genome map there is the vague sense in the public that the promise has not been fulfilled. The public was promised that the HGP would allow us to identify genes associated with diseases, and then craft cures based upon that knowledge. So where are all the genetic cures we were promised?

Replace ‘the public” with “the American people” and you have a political stump speech. These kind of broad sweeping statements that declares a group of people think this or want that raises my skeptical eyebrow. Is it really known that the public has a vague sense of unfulfillment regarding the HGP? If surveyed, would the majority of the public even know what the human genome project is?

By: Kawarthajon

Kawarthajon — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:39:11 +0000

It is convenient to always blame the media for the exaggerated effects of a particular technology or advance in science, but I recall that the HGP researchers themselves also contributed to the hype as well. Competing for research grants is often fertile ground for exaggeration, as is the scientific journals’ quest for readers. The research granters also want to promote the fact that their money was well spent, so will contribute to the hype, as will universities who want the exposure. There are multiple layers of hype built into any major scientific advance and it is convenient to blame the journalists, but it can miss the bigger picture.

BTW, there was a recent success with gene therapy in treating leukemia – they altered the genes of t-cells to hunt down and destroy cancer cells and it worked!

By: PharmD28

PharmD28 — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:48:08 +0000

As a clinical pharmacist I am very excited that in my lifetime we may see some movement in these areas. We see scatter plots of data points and a line of best fit, but there are significant sub groups that have strangely specific responses to therapies….not that genetics will be the all encompassing defacto cause, but I can only presume it as another piece of data in clinical trials will shed so much more light, and perhaps its own confusion at times….

By: locutusbrg

locutusbrg — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:35:48 +0000

I cannot deny the bust of boom attitude of media related to scientific advancement.
I would like to point out that the HG project’s perception as a disappointment is multi-factorial. Science fiction and entertainment has been portraying genetic manipulation as simple well before the genome project was a tangible reality. Even reasonably educated persons grasp of genetics does not usually extend beyond Punnett squares and dominance/recessive traits. The complex nature of applying the knowledge gained by the project is beyond most lay persons knowledge. People do not understand that you can have a detailed set of instructions all the tools and still have no idea how to put it all together. Mapping the genome is exciting, using it is exciting. Developing the uses is incremental and unexciting.
I always say this to my patients “my experience with new science is baby steps, not leaps, in the end it will probably not be as good as you hoped or as bad as you fear.”
It is more than news reporting and headlines. In my opinion we have a culture that has been watching people shocked back to life in entertainment for 70 years. Asystole you do not Shock. Culturally the attitude is ” What do you mean you can’t cure my arthritis, I just saw Dr. McCoy fix anoxia with a shot in the arm Tuesday night”.
We all are waiting for fusion power, cloned body parts and flying cars. I mean I see it on TV and at the movies every weekend it must be coming soon. ( Although I will admit the the thought of drunk drivers crashing their Delorean into my bedroom at night gives me pause.)

As a personal note my aunt suffers from advanced MS and is wheelchair bound. I certainly hope that something restorative my develop from this.