The big cure for the big ‘C’

This time I'm not going to make any promises. I'm going to try and keep this place going better than I have done but I may get distracted again. There's a lot of fun stuff ahead, but it should mean you'll get to see me cropping up in other places very soon. In other news, if you didn't see it, I got a post on the Nature.com network on Monday which I'm very excited about. It's on the theme of new beginnings and organising my first conference.

I'd also like to say a quick hello to some of my readers that I've had the good fortune to meet around Cambridge since I last posted anything. I'm always surprised that people have actually heard of my ramblings and am glad that I'm not talking to myself here (although after so much inactivity that may have changed :S )

Anyway, people are always asking me if I've cured cancer yet. This is one of the things that my lab and many others are working towards, in a roundabout sense. But it seems likely that there will never be one cure for all cancer and here's why:

At the risk of being cliché, given all the recent media activity (which I have spectacularly missed the opportunity to write about), finding the ‘cure for cancer’ is to biology what the Higgs Boson was to particle physics. Everyone’s working on it and it means a lot – not just to our understanding of the universe, but to human healthcare – and it may not even exist.

People like to think there can be a simple pill that will fix any problem in life from cancer to cellulite, obesity to osteoarthritis (source).

It’s very nice and easy to think of one simple, easy to administer cure – this is the ultimate dream for many illnesses – but most diseases just aren’t that simple, in particular a ‘cure for cancer’ is a very misleading concept.  It suggests that cancer is one illness that is the same every time it occurs and therefore should have the same solution each time. Actually, there are probably as many cancers as there are people with cancer, with each one unique and different to any other, to some extent.

tMoL: Genotype vs. Phenotype

It's the end of another term, time for me to move on again. I'll be going home soon to write about what's been going on, and there's a lot to say. The talks I did in schools went really well, although there's still stuff to improve on. This lab placement has been really great and I've been enjoying all the other projects I'm involved in. Next up is an unconference, SciBarCamb, which I strongly recommend to anyone reading this blog.

This is a peice I wrote for a friend of a friend, she's doing a course in genetics and was looking for clarification of the difference between genotype and phenotype, it was a bit of a rush job but hopefully it clarifies matters.

In order to live, grow and make more of themselves, cells need to have instructions. These are stored as DNA, which is mostly found in the cell nucleus. Each set of instructions is called a gene, each gene produces a particular protein. The full set of human DNA, the human genome, can make thousands of proteins and each protein performs a specific function within a cell.

Genes are specific DNA sequences (source)

 Different people have different versions of the same gene and hence of the same protein, this is what makes us genetically different. These different gene alleles have different effects within our body. As a simplified example; there is a protein which is responsible for hair colour. If it is functioning properly then you have brown hair. Some versions of the protein do not function properly so there is no colour made, this results in blonde hair. There are various other versions with intermediate effects resulting in all different hair colours. This is a slight simplification, as there are actually multiple proteins involved in hair colour, but it illustrates the principle.

SOS: Save our Science - Preventing Pandemic

Hey! I've been busy finishing my first project and after some last minute panicking it's all over and I'm moving on from chickens to yeast, but before I do I wanted to share this new story. A breakthrough in preventing the spread of Bird Flu, that has applications in protecting against a wide range of other viruses. This is the sort of story I've been looking forward to writing for a while, I hope you'll see why.


A group of researchers may have found a way to prevent the spread of bird flu through domestic populations, a revolution which could significantly reduce the risk of humans becoming infected. Not only that, but this technique could be easily used to protect against any viral infection in almost any species. It could even eventually be used to protect ourselves. This method requires no vaccinations and provides life-long protection from a broad range of different avian flu strains.

SOS: Save our Science - Last minute Christmas

Now that Christmas is drawing to a close our thoughts turn exuberantly towards the January sales. Blowing all of our new gift vouchers and our remaining money on last minute impulse buys. The good news for all of us is that we may be able to blame these rash choices on our genes.

Impulsivity is described as doing something without foresight, and understanding it has major implications for a range of psychiatric disorders as well as explaining what will be going on in the high street over the next few weeks. Impulsive behaviour is very complex and under the control of many genes. It has many aspects, most especially reduced inhibitions, but also including reduced attention span, limited awareness of consequences and inappropriate responses to rewards. Impulsive behaviour is also known to be inherited in some cases. This new study shows that it is possible to identify the genes involved in this behaviour.

tMoL: Nucleus

The brain of the cell. It is one of the most well known elements of an animal cell, and is common to all higher organisms (eukaryotes – animals, plants,fungi), as with most structures inside a cell it does not occur in bacteria (prokaryotes). Most DNA in a cell is found in the nucleus, it is the storage centre for all of the information to make more cells. The nucleus is also full of proteins which control which genes are active in a cell and help to pack all of the DNA into such a tiny space. This is how cells are able to become specialised to a specific function, by controlling which genes are active.

SOS: Save our science - Good Science or good publicity?

So this is the second part of my ramblings, and probably the most important bit. This part is all about accurately reporting on science in the media. I’m going to write about science stories that have got people talking, the ones that actually make it into the mainstream. I’m going to write about them in a pragmatic (and possibly occasionally cynical) manner that cuts to the truth of the matter without all the overblown revolutionary claims that are usually applied to these stories.

It seems appropriate to start with this one; I should say before I begin that I do strongly believe in NASA and hope they get the shuttle program back on track soon. But as far as overblowing things goes, I thought this was pretty good.

(Ed. Since this whole story is rapidly collapsing into random mud slinging I would like to point out that this post was written to highlight the way in which science can be distorted by the media, and is not meant as a personal affront to anyone directly involved).

Good science or good publicity?

Good Publicity

Big news! NASA has found aliens living in California (like we didn’t already know) and everyone is getting excited that we’re not alone in the universe. But is it really that big a deal, or has NASAs publicity department just been very clever in distracting everyone from the fact they still haven’t managed to get the shuttle off the ground?

To start with, I’m going to assume that the science underlying all of this is actually correct, and we’ll look at the actual implications and meanings of such a discovery and how it can be blow out of all proportion by the press. Later, I will briefly look at why this work seems to have very little sound scientific foundation and does not really demonstrate anything important.