I agree that this has very small chance to translate directly.

However, we still need to do some preclinical work developing technology. How good a mouse model is for cancers I am sure is debatable.

Cancer is treated classically 3 ways: cut, burn, poison. Cut = surgery. Burn = radiation. Poison = chemo.

We now have a fourth way. Different immunotherapies. Those already on the market.

This paper is trying develop another immunotherapy by another mechanism.

No.

For some cancers, better to just watch and wait than treat them. Don't take the therapy side effects for low grade cancer that is localizing, non to very slow spread, not impacting any function. Monitor the cancer to see if anything changes.

Cancer likelihood increases with age. For a really old patient, very possible to find with advanced imaging small cancers. Not worth treating and those are not going to kill the patient. They are low grade, not impacting function and more of we only founded it due to imaging. Patient is going to die from something else. Patient is going to die with cancer than from it.

Cancer is not a death sentence. There are some terminal cancers that killed, but not the majority.

Cancer is a collection of diseases. Some more serious than others.

Prognosis of any cancer varies a lot. The key things are location, tissue of origin, and cancer genotype.

To explain some of this to lay readers. Cancers are weird. Everything from the shape and structure of them to how they get and structure the blood supply system. This paper and its subfield focus on the local immune environment of cancers.

Cancers somehow avoid being killed off by the immune system. Why the immune is not working on the cancer is a big question.

One thing being tried with this vaccine approach is teaching the immune system hey this actually is cancer.

This paper has for IV given vaccines, the immune system is working two ways to fight cancer. The innate immune system is working in the local tumor environment. T cells are boosted and fight the cancer better.

This study was done in mice, so don't get hopes up too much. How much different between lab mice tumors and a particular human cancer is a big question.

Cancer is better understood as a collection of diseases. The genotype of the cancer, the location, and tissue of origin all matter. Not all cancers are as scary as others. Don't panic if you here the c word. Find out what it is more in depth before worrying too much. Stressing yourself out wouldn't help.

The mRNA tech had been in development a long time including animal studies.

Read the article.

It's not. Read the article.

The child has two broken copies.

If she has kids, it depends on husband's DNA. If he has two normal copies, all her children are carriers. If husband has it, all kids get it. If husband a carrier, 50% odds kids get it.

Not necessarily that this caused by close family marriage. The exact mutations on the base pair level could be different between the parents. Both mutations create non or low functioning proteins.

For diseases with enzyme replacement therapy already, possible to give treatment even earlier. In Utero can be done.

DNA is the blueprint. mRNA is the working transcript.

Read the article. Autosomal recessive.

Each parent has a mutated copy on non-sex chromosome and it takes two copies to have disease.

Political violence is always wrong and never called for. Does not matter the parties.

Article is in a philosophy journal. Paper is about ethics. He argues it is ethical to do scientific research that connects genetics and intelligence even if racial groups are found.

Edit typo

I agree that the science to this is ethical. I was just trying to phrase that comment neutral.

Is it ethical to even conduct the research is the question.

The guy that just got the fellowship said yes it is ethical to do the research.

No, the question is one of ethics.

Science itself has no ethics to it. Easy to dream up morally horrible scientifically sound experiments. Some type of experiments are off limits.

That said, this researcher was defending research linking genetics within groups of people to IQ

The analogy fails.

The question of God is its own philosophy field.

Sounds like his critics prove him right.

Paper in question he wrote:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803

Abstract

>In a very short time, it is likely that we will identify many of the genetic variants underlying individual differences in intelligence. We should be prepared for the possibility that these variants are not distributed identically among all geographic populations, and that this explains some of the phenotypic differences in measured intelligence among groups. However, some philosophers and scientists believe that we should refrain from conducting research that might demonstrate the (partly) genetic origin of group differences in IQ. Many scholars view academic interest in this topic as inherently morally suspect or even racist. The majority of philosophers and social scientists take it for granted that all population differences in intelligence are due to environmental factors. The present paper argues that the widespread practice of ignoring or rejecting research on intelligence differences can have unintended negative consequences. Social policies predicated on environmentalist theories of group differences may fail to achieve their aims. Large swaths of academic work in both the humanities and social sciences assume the truth of environmentalism and are vulnerable to being undermined. We have failed to work through the moral implications of group differences to prepare for the possibility that they will be shown to exist.

In this recent mega genetics paper, people were still grouped by ancestries of region in the world.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05275-y

How to start a fight in a bar full of biologists is ask them if viruses are alive.

The current cell based definition is workable and does not include viruses.