The World's Cutest Picture
My friends Brad and Dave have just left, after a very
pleasant visit that was far too short.
Both are accomplished birders (they expanded my “life-list” by nearly 6%
- from 102 to 108). They also are
enthusiastic desert explorers and general naturalists, and so my wonderful
little jeep got plenty of exercise. And in addition, Dave always comes bearing
many bottles of excellent wine, and Brad provides multiple peanut butter
cookies of a quality unexperienced by me since my mother hung up her apron long
ago. Needless to say, I invited them
back!
But then I started thinking about the “Moonshot” – and
realized I have very little left to say.
As many have said, this is a propitious moment to multiply our efforts
to cure “cancer”. Here is a short list
of why:
1)
Largely
owing to such genome-wide investigations as ENCODE and The Cancer Genome Atlas
(both of which I have written about previously}, we are aware of the diversity
of “cancer”, and have formed an appreciation of how difficult conquering “it”
will be. So much so, in fact, that I
will stop using the quotation marks and take it as given that you are aware
that what we have called “cancer” is many separate, but closely related,
diseases.
2) Also,
resulting from research into the significance of our “junk” DNA, we are
beginning to get a handle on how our genes are controlled – turned on, turned
off, muted and modified. Most cancers
are the result of genes behaving badly; this new knowledge may – should - help us correct their behavior.
3) Progress
is being experienced all along the front lines.
Immunotherapy, personalized therapy, early detection, increased
understanding of environmental factors – it almost seems as though each of
these, and more, are only lacking a swift kick in the butt to take off. Note that money will help, but more than
money is needed.
4) Available
technology of ridiculously sophisticated complexity has come on line. To cite the one that has generated the most
squawk, the CRISPR Cas9 will let us “edit” our very genes! This is an inconceivably powerful weapon for
good. And, yes, it can be scary.
5) And
finally – we still are rich enough to afford one more Moonshot.
So, go get ,em, Joe!! (Joe Biden, that is.)
My one remaining worry – a big one
– is that future increases in funding will be distributed to researchers
following current practice – peer-group review.
I have railed against this procedure several times previously; I feel
that it inculcates excessive caution, incrementalism and delay, while
simultaneously suppressing creativity. I
think we need a top-down approach, with one person or maybe two completely in
charge. My history may be faulty, but a
am fairly certain that’s how we beat Hitler to the atomic bomb, and Russia to
the moon. So here, off the top of my
balding head, are a few suggestions.
First, don’t give the money to the
NCI or NIH. Instead, create a new entity
– call it NCA, for the National Cancer Agency – and put someone like Joe Biden
in nominal charge. Joe is an experienced
and adept politician; Joe not only knows where all the bodies are buried, he
also knows where they stacked the shovels!
Someone like Joe is indispensable in dragging ideas through government
and into fruition.
However, entrust scientific
decisions to someone who is broadly abreast of what’s going on, and can make
hard decisions. This person must be an accomplished
scientist, but have attributes of an effective administrator. Previously I have suggested Dr. Soon Shiong: read about him here:
Or maybe somewhere there is
another hyperactive genius polymath who would be even better. But, whoever is selected, put him or her
totally in charge. No committee votes,
no peer reviews. Top down. Sounds like a horrible job, doesn’t it, but I
would bet that there are plenty of qualified adrenalin junkies who would love
it. Another top candidate might be
Jennifer Doudna of U.C., Berkeley, who is riding the CRISPR express full blast
into parts unknown and hitherto undreamed of:
http://www.nature.com/news/genome-editing-revolution-my-whirlwind-year-with-crispr-1.19063
And, of course, give her/him an
advisory panel – maybe the heads of the half-dozen top cancer labs in the
country: Sloan Kettering, Fox Chase, M.D. Anderson, Fred Hutch, etc. ,
etc. Let them rotate, perhaps. But it should be clear that this panel is
advisory only; where the money goes is entirely the responsibility of the
Cancer Czar. At least then we would know
who to blame!
Okay, I started this by saying I
had little to say, then wrote two pages, 750 words. Imagine how long this would have been if I’d
had some ideas!
And thanks to any of you who read this
far; your dedication does you credit.
Right, Dave?
I am plowing slowly but with great joy through The Emperor of all Maladies, by Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee. This is my third pass through. I liked it on the first pass, more on the second – but now, possibly owing to the fact that I know a bit more – I think it is wonderful. Mukherjee must be an unusually unusual guy. He seems to have a broad acquaintance with all sorts of aspects of world culture. His writing is superlative and obviously flows easily and naturally; many a time I have ground my teeth to observe how easily he expresses a thought with a construction that I would have endured agonies to emulate. And then, all this aside, he is a practicing oncologist and cancer researcher! I would recommend him for the job of Cancer Czar were it not for one fact: Sidd is an Assistant Professor at Columbia. Place him over the senior professor and hand him their purse strings and, so far as promotion goes, old Sidd would irrevocably be toast!
ReplyDeleteHere is a general discussion of the unusual genetic complexity involved in ovarian cancer, which may help explain why we are doing such an outstandingly dismal job of containing it:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.onclive.com/publications/Oncology-live/2016/vol-17-no-16/true-genomic-drivers-of-ovarian-cancer-not-yet-identified-nci-researcher-says