Within Our Grasp, Or Slipping Away? Assuring a New Era of Scientific and Medical Progress is a twenty one page report written by Johns Hopkins University and seven other institutions.

These institutions petitioned Congress not to let biomedical research funding stagnate. The scientists say that funding for cancer, Alzheimer's disease and spinal cord injury research is not keeping up with the times.

The scientists argued years of stagnant budgets for the National Institute of Health interrupted promising research and drove young investigators into other careers.

"Warning bells should be sounding loudly in Congress and among the public, " said Edward Miller, Hopkins dean and CEO. "The world's premier biomedical research engine is at risk"

Currently, eight of ten research grant applications are going unfunded, according to the report and principal investigators are spending more time raising funds instead of conducting research.

Cell phones don't cause cancer, according to a major study from Denmark that tracked 420,000 Danish cell phone users -- many of them users for more than 10 years and some for more than 20 years.

In the largest ever study to yield good news about the safety of cell phones, scientists matched phone records to the Danish Cancer Registry -- a listing that records every citizen who gets the disease -- and on Tuesday, the study results were revealed.

Cell-phone users are no more likely than anyone else to develop cancer.

But the lead researcher of this massive investigation says doubts will surely linger. There is really no biological basis for concern about radio waves, he says. But people still worry.

Cell phones beam radiofrequency energy that can penetrate the outer edge of the brain, causing suspicion about the origin of various cancers. Most research has found no link between cell phones and cancer, but the phones have never been given a definite clean bill of health either.

"As the body of evidence accumulates, people can become reassured that these devices are safe," says one cell phone researcher.

An issue of great debate for quite some time, scientists seem to have finally put an end to the cell phone/cancer connection argument. According to a study in the December issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, scientists from the Danish Institute of Cancer Epidemiology have determined that short and long-term cell phone use is not associated with the increased risk of cancer.'

The question of cell phones' safety -- especially as it was supposedly related to its causing certain types of cancer -- is one that consumers and scientists have been hoping to have answered for quite some time. Because cell phones emit electromagnetic fields that can penetrate into the human brain, it's been speculated that this could potentially cause tumors in the head or neck. However, based on this new information, it appears as though this is not the case.

Studying just over 420,000 cell phone users who first starting using their "celly" between the years 1982 and 1995, the researchers tracked these individuals' health until 2002. The researchers did not find any connection between short or long-term cell phone use and brain tumors, eye tumors, salivary gland tumors, or leukemia.

So, with that cell phone issue now taken care of, I suppose that all that remains is dealing with the whole talking-and-driving thing. Oh yeah, and also doing my best to stop picturing a piece of danish dressed in a lab coat.

A new compound developed by the healthcare company Abbott might have the power to end the prolonged life of cancerous tumor cells.

The compound, ABT-737, is being researched by experts at Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Melbourne's world leading medical research body. And the drug is showing great promise.

Melbourne scientists discovered in 1989 how to keep cells alive. Then they determined how cancer cells are formed. After months of assessment, scientists believe ABT-737 could turn a switch back on in the body to ensure tumor cells die.

"Rather than attempting to poison the rogue cells, the new drug attempts to reactivate the normal cell death program that failed to kill the unwanted cells on cue," said one researcher. "ABT-737 is a switch flicker that kicks the cell death machinery into action."

Scientists helping to develop the next generation of cancer beating drugs say they have had a major breakthrough with their latest results. The new drugs would target an enzyme that helps cells divide; in cancer, this enzyme is called Aurora B. This enzyme can go into overdrive and possibly lead to uncontrolled and abnormal cell divisions.

The idea is to inhibit the Aurora B that is overexpressed in cancer cells. This could lead to a new class of cancer drugs called Aurora inhibitors that are less toxic and have relatively mild side effects.

The University of Manchester team has been working on the Aurora B inhibitor in collaboration with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. The group published an earlier paper in 2003 that highlighted the potential success of targeting Aurora B. These latest findings further strengthen the team's belief that Aurora B inhibition is the preferred route to an effective cancer therapy.

In a world of checks and balances, there are procedures that need to be adhered to in order to insure the objectivity of the process. In this case, the stages when a newly-developed drug goes from inception to market.

Drug company develops drug. Experimental drug enters scientifically-based clinical trials run by unbiased objective researchers. If all goes well, and the drug shows benefit in the treatment it was designed for, drug gets approved for use. Patient receives drug. Ideally, patient gets better.

Drug company develops drug. Drug company finances clinical trials, and pays researchers who will determine the effectiveness and safety of experimental drug. No need to continue on, the process is now potentially and ethically compromised.

This morning, from many reputable dead tree publications, runs this headline: AP: Researchers Escape Ethics Punishment. Why? According to the National Institutes of Health, "The majority of federal scientists investigated for improperly accepting personal money from drug companies or biotechnology firms escaped serious punishment, and investigators declined to proceed with several cases involving possible crimes."

The next time a reader comes by and extols the virtues of scientific medical research as the gold standard to which all else should be validated, I am simply pointing them to this investigative outcome. We should all be disillusioned and a wee bit angry that the wolves seem to be guarding the barn.

In a surprising discovery, 200 mutated genes linked to the development, growth and spread of breast and colon cancers have been identified by Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center scientists. This information might provide vital research into the future treatment for these cancers.

Other cancers can be studied using the methods these researchers, called the Hopkins gene hunters, used in discovering the 200 genetic mutations for breast and colon cancers.

"This gives us some understanding of why breast and colon cancers, and most likely other cancers as well, are very different diseases and develop through different processes. When we say this will drive cancer research for the next couple of decades, this is one of the reasons," states Kenneth Kinzler, Ph.D., professor of oncology and co-director of the Ludwig Center at Johns Hopkins. "Now researchers will study how these mutations occur in breast and colon cancers, perhaps searching for environmental agents or cellular processes that drive these changes."

To read more detail on this study and discovery, visit Genome Code Cracked for Breast and Colon Cancers. An MP3 file and XML for iPods has been provided so that you can listen to Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center scientists discuss this research.

An announcement last Wednesday revealed an overall decline in cancer death rates -- probably due to reduced exposure to tobacco, early detection, and better treatment. But the announcement also revealed a surprising jump in cases of thyroid cancer for women.

Between the years 1981 and 1993, incidence rates among women climbed 2.2 percent each year. Between the years 1993 and 2000, they rose 4.6 percent per year. And between 2000 and 2003, there was a 9.1 percent increase each year. This could be a result of better diagnosis but scientists are wondering if there is an unknown risk factor contributing to this startling finding. And it will take at least two more years to determine whether this is a random fluctuation or a true trend. The rate of thyroid cancer in men has also increased but not as much as for women.

The silver lining in this cancer cloud is that trends -- such as those showing increases in cancer incidences and death rates -- often fuel the fight against cancer because researchers are alerted to look for causes which ultimately results in better detection and better prevention.

Although under pressure to do so, Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) wrote in an editorial that medical journals cannot ban researchers from having research papers published that do not disclose commercial ties to pharmaceutical companies -- for fear of antitrust lawsuits. DeAngelis also stated that, "rooting out conflicts of interest is nearly impossible given that for-profit companies often provide the funding to discover, test and market advances in medicine."

What does potential conflicts of interest and lack of required disclosure mean for the public? That scientific research reports on research into new drugs and various treatments for disease is, and will remain, open to suspicion as to the scientific integrity of research, if it is not transparent in who is writing the check to have the study done. Even DeAngelis admits that honest disclosure of financial support for researchers is essential information for the public. This is a serious issue that needs to be resolved in a better way than is currently being suggested -- public confidence and health depend on it.

Charlie Emrich, in Glowing chickens bring hope in fight against cancer, calls fluorescent chickens, "cool in a creepy, mad-scientist sort of way." When you consider that scientists have combined jellyfish DNA with chickens to create illuminated birds, you can kind of see it from Emrich's descriptive perspective.

The purpose of chickens that glow, is that scientists can track antibody-based therapies that might prove valuable in treating human cancers.

UC Davis Cancer Center Dr. Joseph Tuscano explains that, "One of the problems with modern drugs is that they're not very specific. Even aspirin is not very specific. Antibodies, on the other hand are highly, highly specific meaning that, like an archer's arrow, they can effectively target a disease. Antibody-based therapies are one of the biggest advances in cancer treatment in the last 40 years."

Emrich quotes researchers of the project and takes you through the purpose and process of genetically-modified glow-in-the-dark chickens in the potential development of antibody-based therapies to one day treat cancer here.

George W. Bush declared five years ago that no federal funding would be allocated for embryonic stem cell research. He has not changed his mind -- and two weeks ago vetoed a bill that would allow this research. He says that supporting the bill would be supporting the taking of innocent human life in order to find medical benefits for others. For Bush, it crosses a moral boundary. But most Americans support stem cell research and would like to see the Bush White House loosen its restrictions, says Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University in Washington. Until this happens, though, scientists and researchers find themselves in an ethically-charged minefield, operating carefully and responsibly and ethically.

Dr. Peter Dirks -- a neurosurgeon specializing in childhood brain cancer at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children who has been making headlines around the world for isolating brain cancer stem cells two years ago -- is one person weighing in on controversial issue of stem cell research. Dirks does not use embryonic stem cells but instead uses cells from tumors removed during brain surgery that would otherwise be discarded. But he says embryonic stem cell research is critical for his success. It's what has led to the findings that exist today -- and it holds the clues for further discovery. It's a delicate matter, though, regardless of the politics surrounding the issue. Before he harvests stem cells from any patient's brain tumor, for example, Dirks asks parents to sign a three and a half-page consent form. And that's just the beginning.

Federally-funded embryonic stem cell research does not yet have its beginning here in the United States. Maybe the tides will change. Maybe we will see progress. Maybe we won't. Only time will tell.

Scientists have announced the development of an ultra-sensitive blood test for breast cancer that can detect breast cancer at its earliest stages and potentially improve breast cancer screening for younger women. Mammography, the standard method in breast cancer screening, is less accurate for younger women.

The blood test is 200–1,000 times more sensitive than existing tests, according to UCL Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, the University of Pittsburgh and BioTraces, Inc. researchers who all worked to develop the test. Pilot studies also indicate the blood test might prove valuable in the screening for prostate cancer, ovarian cancer and melanoma skin cancer.

Currently, breast cancer diagnosis is done by breast examination, imaging with mammography and ultrasound, and then biopsy. The researchers are hoping that the new blood test might eliminate the need for a biopsy in making a final determination of cancer. The report is published in the Journal of Proteome Research.

Scientists have determined that mouth cancer develops in two different ways which dictates the seriousness of the disease. This finding, revealed on Tuesday, could lead to better prevention and treatment. In laboratory experiments with healthy, early, and advanced cancer cells, researchers were able to pinpoint differences in the cells that determined the aggressiveness of the cancer. They found faults in the p53 gene, which stops damaged cells from dividing, and in the p16 gene, which helps regulate and prevent cancer from developing. Both changes are linked to more aggressive tumors. This is first-time evidence that some mouth cancer tumors are more aggressive than others and are unfortunately linked to poor patient survival.

Oral cancer typically stems from pre-cancerous lesions, changes, or patches in the mouth -- all of which are early signs of cancer. Recognizing which pre-cancerous changes are more likely to develop into aggressive tumors would allow doctors an insight that could help them prescribe the best treatment.

Smoking, use of chewing tobacco, and heavy alcohol consumption are the leading causes of mouth cancer. And smoking and drinking are a very dangerous combination. Like lung cancer, mouth cancer usually develops in people age 50 or older.

Close to 6,000 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists were contacted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and asked to answer a 38-question survey in an effort to determine the scientific integrity of the agency. Of the scientists contacted, 997 participated in the survey. Following are some key findings of the survey released by UCS: