Biomedicine

Why Cancer Strikes Some

New ways to gauge an individual's response to environmental toxins will help scientists understand susceptibility to disease.

  • Thursday, February 16, 2006
  • By Emily Singer

It's a conundrum that puzzles doctors and patients alike: one person smokes a few cigarettes per week in college and contracts lung cancer in middle age, while another person smokes a pack a day his whole life -- and lives to age 90.

A new program announced last week by the National Institutes of Health aims to unravel such mysteries by precisely measuring the role that environmental agents, such as pesticides and solvents, play in common diseases, including cancer, asthma, and autism.

Advertisement

A major part of the program will fund the development of technologies to monitor personal environmental exposures and to determine how those exposures interact with an individual's genetic makeup to increase the risk for disease. Scientists hope these technologies will allow doctors to determine who is at risk early on, and thus be able to intervene soon enough to prevent serious damage.

The NIH has designated $88 million for the period 2007-10 to fund research both inside and outside the institute. The money will go toward development of wearable sensors that measure exposure to environmental toxins, such as solvents, pesticides, and heavy metals.

The funds will also support the development of sensors to determine if exposure to toxins triggers biochemical pathways linked to disease, such as inflammation or cell death, in some individuals. Ultimately, these technologies will be incorporated into genetic studies to understand the link between genes, the environment, and disease.

Initially, the sensors would be used in population studies of disease. But David Schwartz, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (part of the NIH), envisions a day when everyone would wear a sensor that measured levels of key chemicals. An individual's doctor could then read the information and determine if the patient had been exposed to chemicals and therefore was at risk of developing a disease.

The role of environmental toxins in human disease and death has been a major issue in both the public health and legal arenas. Scientists often have difficulty determining if a reported increase in disease, such as a cancer cluster, is linked to a specific factor in the environment. Emerging technologies that could accurately measure exposure and individual response to different chemicals could clarify these often contentious cases.

Print

Related Articles

Detecting Asthma Irritants

A portable sensor array measures air quality to discern the causes of asthma attacks.

Environmental Heresies

The founder of The Whole Earth Catalog believes the environmental movement will soon reverse its position on four core issues.

Seeing Heart Disease More Clearly

A biotech startup is teaming with big pharma to develop substances that can spot heart attacks in the makingand find nearly invisible tumors.

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

Guest (G. Anton Bosanque)

  • 2190 Days Ago
  • 02/16/2006

carcinogens

I recently read about a study that was trying to determine why pancriatic cancer was so prevalent in the US and almost non-existant in India.  The came to the conclusion that it was because Indians eat more vegtables.  What they should have looked at is what chemicals Americans eat in their food and medicines.  I also read about a study that found that a common sweetner (in use for many years) would cause cancer in mice. The problem seemed to be that all the FDA studies sacrifice mice at two years, equivalant to 54 human years, but the cancers usually occur at a later age, so the majority of FDA studies (especially those funded by the substance producer), are invalid. I'm not saying that enviormental factors should not be studied, but I believe that food and drug carcinogens are much more prevalent     and important.

Reply

Guest (Mark)

  • 2176 Days Ago
  • 03/02/2006

Belief vs. science

"I believe that food and drug carcinogens are much more prevalent and important."

Belief isn't science.  Where is the evidence?

Reply

Guest (Clint Anderson)

  • 2189 Days Ago
  • 02/17/2006

How do we participate in Study?

Thanks,
Clint

Reply

Guest (alicia)

  • 2184 Days Ago
  • 02/22/2006

fsdfdgdf

i love this story

Reply

Advertisement

MAGAZINE

Can We Build Tomorrow's Breakthroughs?

Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.

Videos

The Virtual Nurse Will See You Now

More

Advertisement

Technology Review Lists

TR50

Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:

Synthetic Genomics

Life Technologies

IBM

Google

More

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement