If all else fails, why not hold a competition with a million dollar prize for the best cancer cure idea? This is exactly what a group of Harvard researchers and hedge fund managers are doing. Due to a recent lack of adequate federal funding, the Gotham Prize for Cancer Research has been formed to bring out the most creative ideas to help further cancer research.

While more traditional folks might balk at an idea that focuses on creativity rather than concrete proof, the founders of the organization are expecting good things to come of the contest. The competitors will be invited to write an essay outlining their idea. Over the course of a year the entries will be evaluated and judged on their feasibility. This sounds like a most interesting approach.

More and more media reports are mentioning the potential merits of marijuana. The most recent headlines say the active ingredient in the drug cuts tumor growth in common lung cancers in half and greatly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread.

Researchers at Harvard University tested marijuana's main ingredient, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, in both lab and mouse studies and say their experiments are the first to show THC inhibits the growth of cancer.

Researchers are not certain why THC inhibits tumor growth, but it could be that the substance activates molecules that arrest the cell cycle. THC may also interfere with angiogenesis and vascularization, which promotes cancer growth.

There is a long way to go in the study of THC. Yet "the beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer," says Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine.

The Boston Marathon takes place today. And one runner -- known to friends and family as Running Bear -- will run to raise money for brain tumor research. She's already collected more than $3,500.

Harvard student Sarah MacCarthy, 25, will run for her Uncle Tim, who is battling glioblastoma (GBM), the most aggressive form of the primary brain tumors known collectively as gliomas.

If Uncle Tim can fight for his life, MacCarthy can use her privilege of good health to make a difference -- even if it means stepping up her casual running to marathon standards.

The Brain Tumor Society will benefit from MacCarthy's determination. Dedicated to improving quality of life for patients, survivors, and families affected by this disease, BTS is committed to being a national leader in the quest for a cure.

It seems MacCarthy is pretty committed herself. To contribute to her efforts and check on her progress, click here.

There are four pages in the March 2007 Reader's Digest featuring amazing discoveries, devices, tests, and cures. And many of the snippets of information are -- yes -- somehow linked to cancer.

Think about this:

• A new ultrasound technique lets radiologists distinguish between malignant and benign breast lesions. Using elasticity imaging, researchers accurately identified harmless and cancerous lesions in almost all of the 80 cases studied. If results can be reproduced in a large trial, this technique could significantly reduce the number of breast biopsies required.

• Scientists seeking new treatment for diseases can use an online tool developed by researchers at MIT and Harvard. The Connectivity Map matches diseases with compatible drugs, based on the genetic profiles of both. So far, about 160 drugs and compounds are cataloged, and a few new uses for existing drugs have already been suggested. Eventually, all FDA-approved drugs will be included.

• For those who sometimes forget to take their pills, a new device -- that can be preloaded with up to 100 doses of medication -- could one day be implanted in the body and programmed to administer drugs via wireless signals. This device, successful in tests using dogs, was designed to deliver medicines that are less effective when taken orally.

Sometimes it seems cancer's grip is tightening. Other times, in the war against this pesky disease, it seems we are on the verge of something really great.

Scientists from Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are developing a tiny implant that will allow doctors to see what's happening with tumors from the inside out.

If all proceeds according to plan, doctors will one day be implanting tiny sensors inside tumors to determine whether or not cancer drugs are shrinking the tumors. The sensors will also determine whether or not tumors are growing.

Cancer specialists have long wished for better methods of measuring the success of drugs. While blood tests can show if a drug has reached the bloodstream, they don't reveal much about the tumor itself. This small silicone cube, no bigger than two millimeters on each side and embedded in a tumor or lymph node, would remain in the body throughout treatment while essentially broadcasting what's going on inside the tumor.

MIT scientists hope to begin animal experiments within months. Their goal is to one day make the implant as thin as the pieces of led used in mechanical pencils.

This research, funded by the National Cancer Institute, is part of a long-term project to make medical technologies that will cure cancer. It's all part of journey toward complete targeted cancer treatment. And this little implant will have the power to communicate whether or not these treatments are working.

As if gum disease is not a painful enough experience, a Harvard study shows the disease can more than double the risk of pancreatic cancer. Additionally, those with a history of gum disease and recent tooth loss have a 2.7-fold increase in risk.

Previous studies have linked gum disease and pancreatic cancer, but smoking -- which contributes to both diseases -- has never been taken into consideration.

Researchers in this study, who controlled for smoking, followed 51,529 men for 16 years and found those who reported gum disease were 64 percent more likely to have pancreatic cancer. Nonsmokers with gum disease were twice as likely to develop the disease.

It was also determined in the study, published in the January 17 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, that the more severe the gum disease, the higher the cancer risk.

While it is not clear why gum disease is linked to cancer risk, researchers believe perhaps long-term gum infections trigger body-wide inflammation -- and inflamed tissues send chemical signals that promote tumor growth.

Women with ovulation disorders -- and related infertility problems -- have a lower risk of developing breast cancer, according to a study of more than 116,000 women.

Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston studied data from the Nurses' Health Study II and evaluated female nurses aged 25 to 42, tracking them every two years beginning in 1989 and ending in 2001.

Results of the study, reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine, revealed 1,357 diagnosed cases of invasive breast cancer. Overall, women with ovulation disorders had a 25 percent less chance of developing this disease than those without the disorder.

Also detected was an even lower risk of breast cancer for women who experienced induced ovulation for treatment of infertility. This is potentially great news -- pending more research, of course -- for women worried about breast cancer implications of infertility treatment.

If we made no further progress in breast cancer research from this day on, the number of women dying from breast cancer five years from now would still drop substantially because we've progressed so much over the past few years, says MD Eric Winer in the October 2006 issue of Oprah magazine. Winer, director of the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, is right. There has been a lot of progress. Breast cancer research is on a roll. And here are seven reasons why.

Breast density has something to do with breast cancer. This is not really news. It's clear there is some kind of link, some kind of relationship, some kind of risk related to breast density for both pre- and post-menopausal women. It's just not clear how exactly breast density -- how much fat tissue fills the breast compared to other tissue -- contributes to breast cancer risk. But once it is clear, medical professionals will have a whole new arsenal of power in the fight against this deadly disease.

Cancer News in Context, a regular series of podcast commentaries produced by the Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention, highlights two recent studies that add weight to the fact that breast density is an important tool in breast cancer prediction and identifies two areas that with futher study might help determine why breasts that are very dense are associated with higher risks for breast cancer -- and why density may be as important a factor as age in determining risk.

Currently, mammograms are the chosen method for measuring breast density. But measurement is not required, and there are no national standards for how to measure. Once federal groups issue requirements and direction on how to classify density, women will receive more accurate assessments of their personal risk.

There is also speculation that altering breast density through hormonal therapy may lower risk. Perhaps genetics are the strongest indicator of risk, making short-term solutions ineffective, but perhaps certain interventions can override genetics, helping women protect themselves from breast cancer.

There are many issues that must be ironed out before we really understand how breast density affects breast cancer. There is no doubt that density, when added to other risk factors, will surely help improve the accuracy of prediction. It's one tool, among many, that is poised to open all sorts of doors.

Sometimes drinking alcohol is healthy. And sometimes drinking alcohol is harmful. Studies show that one drink per day -- compared with no drinking at all -- can reduce a woman's risk for heart disease and stroke by 50 percent. And other research indicates that older women who drink moderately have better cognitive skills. But there are also downsides for women who drink even moderate amounts of alcohol.

Even as little as one-half drink per day increases the risk of breast cancer -- possibly because alcohol raises estrogen blood levels which can promote growth of breast tumors. Women are also more likely than men to become dependent on alcohol and to experience other consequences too -- including damage to the brain and other organs. One in 13 adults in the United States has a serious alcohol problem -- and at least six million of these adults are women. And because the risk for alcohol-related health issues increase with age, older women should be especially careful of their alcohol intake for the purpose of maintaining health and limiting the odds of a breast cancer diagnosis.

In the interest of balancing the healthful and harmful effects of alcohol, The Harvard Women's Health Watch suggests that women over the age of 65 limit themselves to one drink per day. Or less.

Five years ago, President Bush restricted federal funding for any new human embryonic stem cell research. Many believe the objections are based soley on religious convictions, and without scientific or true ethical merit. The argument against Bush's stand has been that creating embryonic stem cells from a patient's tissues, correcting the genetic defects, and get the repaired cells back into the patient, opens the door to many cures for diseases. At one time or the other, Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox and Lance Armstrong have all spoken out against the federal funding ban -- as have many intelligent scientists and respected members in the medical community who see the devastating effects disease or profound physical injury can have on a patient.

Harvard University researchers are going around the federal funding ban by using only private funds and will begin research in an effort to clone human embryos as a source of stem cells. The researchers do not go into this lightly. They have visited the ethical issues at length and created strict standards for the research work and as they said, "to separate out all funding so that not a penny of federal money is spent on the effort." I honor and respect a person's personal religious beliefs -- there are many religions and many different religious beliefs to honor and respect -- but I do not feel it should ever dictate government policy -- especially if it means depriving patients of potential cures to disease.