Could Physics Cure Cancer?
Davies’s research focuses on the “big questions” of existence, ranging from the origin of the universe to the origin of life, and include the nature of time, the search for life in the universe, and foundational questions in quantum mechanics. He helped create the theory of quantum fields in curved spacetime, with which he provided explanations for how black holes can radiate energy, and what caused the ripples in the cosmic afterglow of the Big Bang. In astrobiology, he was a forerunner of the theory that life on Earth may have come from Mars. He is currently championing the theory that Earth may host a shadow biosphere of alternative life forms.
Davies has lectured on scientific topics at institutions as diverse as The World Economic Forum, the United Nations, the Commission of the European Union, Google, Windsor Castle, The Vatican and Westminster Abbey, as well as mainstream academic establishments such as The Royal Society, The Smithsonian Institution, and the New York Academy of Sciences. Davies devised and presented a series of 45 minute BBC Radio 3 science documentaries and a one-hour television documentary about his work in astrobiology, entitled "The Cradle of Life." Among his bestselling books are "The Mind of God," "How to Build a Time Machine," and "The Goldilocks Enigma." His latest book, "The Eerie Silence," was published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt in 2010.
Question: What do you hope to accomplish \r\nby applying physics\r\nto cancer research?\r\n\r\n
Paul\r\nDavies: A couple of years\r\nago I had a call from the deputy director at the National Cancer \r\nInstitute,\r\nAnna Barker, with an amazing proposal. \r\nShe said "Well, we’re spending billions of dollars worth of \r\ntaxpayer’s\r\nmoney on the famous war on cancer and most of this is going to cancer\r\nbiologists, oncologists, geneticists following sort of the well trodden \r\npath\r\nthat those very brilliant people have trodden and they’ve accumulated a \r\nvast,\r\nvast amount of information. Here\r\nis a subject about which an enormous amount is known, but unfortunately \r\nvery\r\nlittle is understood." And so she had this very bold proposal that maybe\r\nphysicists and physical scientists generally, including mathematicians \r\nand\r\nchemists and so on might be able to lend a hand, not by giving the \r\ncancer\r\nbiologists a new death ray, but by lending some of the concepts in, say,\r\nfundamental physics to the problem of cancer. Physicists\r\n think about the world in a very particular way. They\r\n go about solving problems in a\r\ncertain manner. The whole culture\r\nof physics is really very different from that, biology, so maybe \r\nphysicists\r\nhave got something to contribute. \r\nNow this is obviously a bold venture, but as a consequence of two\r\n or\r\nthree workshops exploring that possibility the National Cancer Institute\r\nannounced about a year ago that they will be funding 12 centers around \r\nthe\r\ncountry and Arizona State University has one and I’m principle\r\ninvestigator. There are about 12\r\npeople on my team, a similar number in the other centers, and it is \r\nearly days\r\nyet, but it’s an experimental as well as a theoretical program.\r\n\r\n
Because I’m completely new to the field I’m having \r\nto learn\r\nvery fast. My own contribution is\r\nin running workshops, brainstorming workshops questioning the hidden\r\nassumptions that go into our current folklore understanding of cancer. If you open a textbook or talk to an\r\noncologist you will be taught all sorts of things about the nature of \r\ncancer,\r\nstuff which may be true, but it may not be true, and it’s always good in\r\nscience to say "Well how do you know that?" and "Are you really sure?" \r\nand "Could\r\nthere be an exceptional case?" And so my job really is, I call it \r\ngrandly a "cancer\r\nforum." I run a cancer forum in\r\nwhich I bring together from time to time about 20 people from different \r\ndisciplines\r\nand we’ll pick a particular subject. \r\nThe next one is applying evolutionary mathematics to cancer and \r\nwe’ll\r\nfocus on that and we’ll really try and come up with a totally new way of\r\nthinking and hopefully with a new research agenda. It’s\r\n all about coming up with new ideas, but we’ve got to be\r\nable to test those ideas in the lab or at least with computational \r\nmodels to\r\nsee if we can move forward, so what we’re aiming for is the big \r\nbreakthrough,\r\nthe penicillin moment, which cancer research has never had. If you look at the mortality rate from\r\ncancer it has largely unchanged in 40 years whereas almost all other \r\ndiseases\r\nhave had enormous success and so there hasn’t been that really major\r\nbreakthrough, that now we’ve nailed it type of moment where the cancer \r\ncan be\r\ntackled to make a really dramatic difference in the mortality rate. There are one or two cancers that have\r\nbeen cleared up. Childhood\r\nleukemia, has been huge success there, but you know it’s odds and ends. The overall picture of the major\r\nkillers, breast cancer, lung cancer, stomach cancer, and so on, the \r\nstatistics\r\nthere are really pretty dreadful and I think all of us working in this \r\nfield\r\nfeel that if we can make a contribution by coming up with a genuinely \r\nnew idea,\r\ntackle the problem in a completely different way, then this could be \r\nwhat we\r\nhave really waited a long time for, which is that big breakthrough that \r\nis\r\ngoing to maybe halve that mortality rate. \r\nThat’s my ambition.
Recorded April 15, 2010
\r\nInterviewed by Austin Allen
Seeking a "penicillin moment" in cancer research through a radically new approach.
How a cataclysm worse than what killed the dinosaurs destroyed 90 percent of all life on Earth.
While the demise of the dinosaurs gets more attention as far as mass extinctions go, an even more disastrous event called "the Great Dying” or the “End-Permian Extinction” happened on Earth prior to that. Now scientists discovered how this cataclysm, which took place about 250 million years ago, managed to kill off more than 90 percent of all life on the planet.
A new study discovers the “liking gap” — the difference between how we view others we’re meeting for the first time, and the way we think they’re seeing us.
We tend to be defensive socially. When we meet new people, we’re often concerned with how we’re coming off. Our anxiety causes us to be so concerned with the impression we’re creating that we fail to notice that the same is true of the other person as well. A new study led by Erica J. Boothby, published on September 5 in Psychological Science, reveals how people tend to like us more in first encounters than we’d ever suspect.
Using advanced laser technology, scientists at NASA will track global changes in ice with greater accuracy.
Leaving from Vandenberg Air Force base in California this coming Saturday, at 8:46 a.m. ET, the Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 — or, the "ICESat-2" — is perched atop a United Launch Alliance Delta II rocket, and when it assumes its orbit, it will study ice layers at Earth's poles, using its only payload, the Advance Topographic Laser Altimeter System (ATLAS).
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.