I mostly liked this article and research - but it scares me a little to think where employers and insurance companies might take such gene marker research...
One thing about this article that I didn't like was how it moved from correlation to causality without so much as a nod. That is, I believe the research indicates a correlation (if you have the gene, the cancer has a higher probability of presence) and no definitive evidence that the presence of the gene "causes" a specific cancer.
One other area of current research - that might best be discussed in the "Positive Thinking" thread: "Genetic Determinism " is being discredited in several neurology studies (See the July 2nd/9th issue of Newsweek, pp. 62-65 for a layman's discussion.).
While it may be a useful approach for treatment research or ordering tests, genetic markers can be ignored by the body. We have resiliences and redundancies in our systems that can seem to override genetic programming.
While it may be useful approach to use genetic markers for finding treatments and ordering tests - the appeal of current "scientific" genetic determinism is tragic (and nihilistic) when this acceptance interferes with our potential to transform ourselves more rapidly and more often -
-with an optimistic, radically positive belief in something better.
2 Years of PSA between 4 and 5.5
Only 5 percent cancer in one of 8 samples.
Radical Prostatectomy 16FEB07 at age 54.
1+" tumor - touching inside edge of gland.
Texas Hill Country
FRESH Produce Department Manager
Have you had your 5 colors today?