From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Animal Research (mouse screens?)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:10:25 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> They decided ... to use more types of
rl> tumors at the base tier of the research, *after* replacing live mice

From article <BvIz95.7EJ@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger):
rs> So from your response, it would seem that the use of mice (with
rs> implanted tumors) has not been "abandoned" at the National Cancer
rs> Institute as a means of searching for anti-cancer drugs; tissue culture
rs> is now a primary screen and (specially-bred) mice implanted with human
rs> tumors is the followup screen for promising agents? It would seem that
rs> 'abandoned' is hyperbole.

Perhaps.  If you've got some pointers to current technical data, I'd
love to take a look.  The only recent documentation that I've seen comes
from reports in the popular press.   

rl> I agree that the use of other tumors at the base tier of the 
rl> screening process could have been more rewarding, albeit 
rl> significantly more costly and burdensome.  Would you agree with 
rl> me that it was fallacious to assume that a compound with 
rl> therapeutic effectiveness in treating P388 would be equally 
rl> effective in treating the full range of human cancer?

rs> If they had asked me, *I* wouldn't have done it that way.  Maybe.  
rs> 'Fallacious' is somewhat judgemental;  I think people in the past 
rs> took the very best approaches they could think of in searching 
rs> through hundreds of thousands of naturally-occurring and 
rs> synthetic compounds that *might* lead to a new therapy for 
rs> cancer.  

Was there any factual basis for the assumption that leukemia and
breast cancer were related?  [no] I'm not attaching moral guilt 
to the underlying assumptions, but they don't make much sense to 
me.  Nor did they make much sense to many critics, who argued at 
the time that the screening process was aimed at funding a growing
medical bureaucracy rather than dealing more directly with the 
growing problem of cancer in the US.  

rs> And note that we seem to agree that there have been some 
rs> successes in therapeutics based on the screens.  

Sure.  The program achieved some success by developing a useful
treatment modality for dealing with childhood leukemia and lymphoma.
This represents roughly 2% of the total cancer figure.  What about
the 1 in every 8 women who're now facing the prospect of breast
cancer?  [nada]  What about colon and lung cancer?  [zilch]

rs> Our understanding of the process of cancer is now exceedingly 
rs> sophistiated, compared to what people understood when the 'live 
rs> mouse screens' were devised.  And at present, we're only at the 
rs> threshold of understanding.  In a way, belittling past efforts to 
rs> solve a difficult problem is like ridiculing the Wright brothers 
rs> for not using jet engines and aluminum airframes.  At least one 
rs> mentality behind anticancer efforts in that era was the idea that 
rs> brute-force screening would identify active anticancer compounds 
rs> in the same way that it was possible to find the extraordinary 
rs> range of antibiotics for bacterial and fungal organisms that we 
rs> have today.  Regrettably, it's turned out that there are very few 
rs> exploitable differences between us and our cancers.  That wasn't 
rs> known 'back then', I think.  

You're making an assumption... namely that a frontal attack on
any problem is the best way to find a resolution.   What peeves me
about the "War on Cancer" conducted in the 70's and early 80's
is that the environmental factors affecting the onset of the disease
were becoming apparent, via epidemiological studies, yet were 
persistently ignored by the government as well as a number of 
powerful, private organizations (notably the AMA).   I don't
know the cost data, but I suspect the war on lung cancer could 
have been won more cheaply and more quickly if the money spent
on mouse screens had been used to buy off tobacco farmers once
and for all.   I can't help wondering if "cure" warrants bigger
expenditures than "prevention" because of the economic advantages
contained therein for several select groups of individuals: farm
lobbies, physicians, industrial polluters, and some (not all)
pharmaceutical companies.

rs> That said, I'll reiterate my personal distaste for mass screenings,
rs> animal-based or otherwise. After several decades, it should be clear
rs> that difficult problems may be more likely solved by thought than
rs> by brute force. We've been trying brute force for years. 

Agreed.  I don't consider the generic use of brute force to be 
fallacious, BTW, although it may be an unwise investment.  The 
attack on P388, however, reminds me of the old sufi joke about the 
drunk Nasrudin who lost his house keys in the bushes next to his 
front door and went looking for them under the lamppost down the 
street where the area was cleaner and better lit.  

rl> If memory serves, the transition [from live mouse screens as a 
rl> primary screen to cell culture as a primary screen]
rl> took place between 1986 and 1987.
rl> When did you leave grad school? :-)

rs> '84.

Hmm.  I was under the impression that the mouse screens were phased
out by the end of 1987.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals