[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Health/Medical Title: 'We have removed natural selection': Cancer treatment is a 'double-edged sword' by allowing survivors to pass on their tumour-causing genes, controversial study claims Cancer treatment is a 'double-edged sword' by allowing survivors to pass on their tumour-causing genes, a leading scientist claims. Study author Professor Maciej Henneberg from the University of Adelaide, said: 'Besides the obvious benefits that modern medicine gives, it also brings with it an unexpected side-effect - allowing genetic material to be passed from one generation to the next that predisposes people to have poor health. 'Because of the quality of our healthcare in western society, we have almost removed natural selection as the "janitor of the gene pool". 'The accumulation of genetic mutations over time and across multiple generations is like a delayed-death sentence.' Countries with the most advanced healthcare systems have up to 14 times higher cancer rates as they are less vulnerable to the effects of natural selection, new research suggests. Cancer patients should consider undergoing genetic engineering to 'turn off' their tumour-causing genes and prevent them being passed on to future generations, the researchers add. 'We have removed natural selection' Professor Maciej Henneberg said: 'Modern medicine has enabled the human species to live much longer than would otherwise be expected in the natural world. 'Besides the obvious benefits that modern medicine gives, it also brings with it an unexpected side-effect - allowing genetic material to be passed from one generation to the next that predisposes people to have poor health, such as type 1 diabetes or cancer. 'Because of the quality of our healthcare in western society, we have almost removed natural selection as the "janitor of the gene pool". 'Natural selection in the past had an ample opportunity to eliminate defective genes introduced by mutations. He said: 'However, natural selection has been significantly reduced in the past 100 to 150 years, and the direct consequence of this process is that nearly every individual born into a population can pass genes to the next generation, while some 150 years ago, only 50 per cent or less of individuals had this chance. 'Unfortunately, the accumulation of genetic mutations over time and across multiple generations is like a delayed death sentence. 'Allowing more people with cancer genes [to] survive may boost cancer gene accumulation. Patients who survive it will have a chance to pass this predisposition to the next generation.' How the research was carried out The researchers analysed cancer data from 173 countries. The 10 countries deemed to have the worst healthcare were Burkina Faso, Chad, Central African Republic, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Burundi and Cameroon. These nations were compared against the regions considered to have the best health services, which is made up of Iceland, Singapore, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Luxembourg, Germany, Italy, Cyprus and Andorra. The researchers believe regions with the worst healthcare are more vulnerable to natural selection. Cancer rates up to 14 times higher in developed countries Results reveal rates of testicular cancer are 14 times higher in the regions with the best healthcare. More advanced nations are also 12 times more at risk of lung cancer, 10 times of skin cancer and 6.5 times of brain cancer. As well, pancreatic, prostate, leukemia, breast and ovarian forms of the disease are up to five times more prevalent in more developed countries. The findings were published in the journal Evolutionary Applications. Genetic engineering is required to 'turn off' cancer genes Rather than just removing cancers, the researchers add patients should undergo genetic engineering that 'turns off' their tumour-causing genes. Professor Henneberg added: 'Assuming that the increasing genetic load underlies cancer incidence as one of the contributing factors, the only way to reduce it remains genetic engineering- repair of defective portions of the DNA or their blockage by methylation and similar approaches. 'These techniques, though theoretically possible, are not yet practically available. 'They will, however, need to be developed as they provide the only human-made alternative to the disappearing action of natural selection'. DECLINING SPERM COUNTS AND RISING TESTICULAR CANCER RATES COULD BE A TIME BOMB FOR THE HUMAN RACE Declining sperm counts and doubling rates of testicular cancer could be a ticking time bomb for the human race, a leading scientist claimed earlier this month. Sperm counts have halved in the western world over the past four decades, which, alongside rising testicular tumours, could be behind plummeting fertility rates and couples' increasing dependency on IVF, according to Professor Niels Skakkebaek from the University of Copenhagen. Hormone-disrupting pesticides sprayed onto everyday food may be too blame as the changes are occurring too rapidly for genetics to be at fault, he adds. Professor Skakkebaek said: 'Alterations in our genome cannot explain the observations as changes have occurred over just a couple of generations. 'Modern lifestyles are associated with increased exposure to various endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as pesticides that may be harmful to humans even though exposure to individual chemicals is low.' Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
#6. To: cranky (#0)
Have to call this data into question. Most people get cancer well after child bearing years. Meaning, what good does a genetics test do after you have had kids and they are already raised on their own and raising their own families? I know what the eugenics crowd would want to do...Take three generations of a family and gas them to death to meet their supposed 'natural selection' eugenics model. But seriously...Over the past 100 years people died of cancer in their later years and was equated to something that eventually "kills us." Only within the past 30 years have we seen cancer treatments cure and extend lives to later years. This is usually extended or curing people 10-20 years past procreating age ranges.
My guess would be that a such test at that stage would be for information only and be of little practical value. But such a test given to a newborn might prove to have some predictive value.
#21. To: cranky (#17)
And if the test comes out positive, then what? What are the odds?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|