Dear Pedro and Colleagues, I think what we should keep in mind is that cancer cure is just one of the possible incarnations of the recently popular topic of self-organised criticality addressed in Alex’ earlier session. It is not incidental that I came back to put attention on it, even if the “prophetic path to curing cancer” appears doubtful in its full length. There is something fundamental in Per Bak’s idea that has reached neuroscientists already: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140403-a-fundamental-theory-to-model-the-mind/ http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00166/full
If we add to this Brian J. Ford’s exciting idea about the single cell intelligence http://www.brianjford.com/a-10-mensamag-cells.pdf http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00166/full https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ChNHd-pQtI we come to the conclusion that every single element of the human body (from the single cell to the whole system) can act as causality agent in a particular set of interactions. Pedro is right in being sceptic that there would be one miracle solution to all diseases, incl. cancer as stated in the article. This has never been the case so far. Therefore I am inclined to think that the solution to such tough problems will emerge there where diverse ideas such as those exchanged in this forum *resonate* at its base to create plausible recombinations (Pedro’s term) of their own. And this is again a very interesting analogy with the example I gave above and the way of how a single person and a community like FIS can ignite such a creative process. There is indeed no a priori defined cause when a new idea emerges as a result of the resonance of other (even wrong) ideas. We should not be wondering that neuroscientists are excited about SOC as systemic phenomenon. And on the other hand the same principle works at the cellular level. And yet, SOC is only one of the theoretical options that can resonate together. What I am interested to know is: do yo think that SOC is a good point to start from when moving from physics to biology? All the best, Plamen On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan < pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote: > Dear Plamen and FIS Colleagues, > > Finally I could find some spare time for the paper you mentioned. It is > very interesting. The analysis of hydrophobic profiles for proteins shows > rather unexpectedly a power law (self similar) scaling--self organized > criticality (SOC). How much hydrophobic the protein becomes seems to be > subject to Darwinian evolution in the relationship with its target in the > host. For instance, in the virulence of Influenza and other types. Yes, it > looks as if a new analytical tool can be incorporated to the existing > plethora of biomolecular/biophysical/bioinformatic medical resources. > > I have serious doubts, however, that the formidable claim in the title > "SOC: A Prophetic Path to Curing Cancer" has any chance to be realized. > Although not being a biomedical expert in cancer at all, I think that the > NDV oncolytic virus --the proposed magic tool-- has not proved its general > efficacy for all tumors and metastasis. I mean just in vitro. The > complexity of cancer types, of cancer ecologies, and of the interactions > with the immune system, suggest that "massive doses by arterial injection" > as the author proposes might never be dreamed of for any clinical trial. > Given the complete lack of evidence, no ethical committee would devote more > than 5 seconds to consider the issue. > > Let me reiterate that the the analysis of hydrophobic profiles looks very > interesting, but directly jumping to prophetic cures of cancer... Some > years ago, a mathematician also claimed that incorporating non-linearity > analysis in the timing of anti-cancer combined therapies, tremendous > advancements could be achieved. After the media immediate uproar, the final > conclusion was that only in a few cases there could be an improvement of > the treatment. > > So, as you Plamen were pointing some days ago, medicine is very important > for us, a matter of life or death, of deep knowledge and high anxiety. That > means that withing the messiness of the whole disciplines and informal > practices involved, there always be quacks and prophets playing with wild > cards, trumping the credulity of people for self-promotion or for marketing > reasons. It is chilling that entire practices in industrialized medicine > may be regularly caught into those blind games. But it is not only > medicine, our scientific technological civilizations are blind in so many > regards! > > All the best-- Pedro > > -- > ------------------------------------------------- > Pedro C. Marijuán > Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group > Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud > Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) > Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X > 50009 Zaragoza, Spain > Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& > 6818)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > ------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
