Theoretically, if my life goal is to cure cancer, where should I start? PHD in biology?

Henrietta Lackes lacks telomeres. She just doesn't have any!

Do what you are inspired by. It will all contribute.

It's been discussed but the problem is the cancer cells don't do their jobs. Think of a workplace that is slowly filled with people shuffling around pretending to work but not actually doing any work. They try to pick up the slack but it's a war they can't win, eventually office collapses.

>There is already research into telemeters, user.
>research into telemeters
>telemeters

Sure, a PhD would be a good route.

When it comes to a PhD, your program (say, molecular biology vs. genetics vs. biochemistry) is less important than your lab and your PI.

Join a lab in undergrad. Attend seminars, read literature. Start poking around for fields and labs that interest you. Look up those labs and PIs on their websites. They should list whether they're taking students, what programs they're affiliated with, etc. Plus, it never hurts to email. When I was looking at labs before grad school, many PIs were surprisingly receptive to cold emails regarding taking grad students. (Specify you're a grad student; they get bombarded from "pre-meds" who don't give a shit about research and just want to go to med school.)

>telomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomerestelomeres

You could become a sunscreen salesman at the beach. Or throw a bomb into a cigarette company. Or do a phd in biology.

PhD in Compuataional Science and Engineering or CS and focus on AI/ML.

Why would you want to join the ranks upon ranks of biologists that spend their entire career studying a single protein? There are thousands of those papers published a year. The only hope of curing cancer is to use big data techniques to combine the brianlet-tier work into something meaningful.

That's pretty common when you're dead.

Curing cancer is an interdisciplinary goal.
Biology, organic chemistry, bioinformatics, materials science, polymers, and biomedical engineering can all get you to the point where you can help. Find the one you like.

edgy

Major in Mechatronics. Build nanobots that destroy cancer cells

Curing cancer lies in having the knowledge of the way the genetic code works as a biological computer language. Once you can manipulate the code of DNA, curing cancer will be a simple matter. From there you can branch into immortality and superhuman genetics.

>curing failures in genetics

Nice dubs, but what's your plan to deal with muh ethics?

...

MD PhD

Cures have already been found. Read the literature.

This is a place to start:
>Requirement of essential fatty acid for mammary tumorigenesis in the rat.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3921234

Why are there so few ways to contribute to solving the world's most intractable problems in _small_ ways, without having to be a supergenius with multiple PhDs? Are we brainlets really just dead weight?

I don't think you really need superintelligence to solve medical problems, but you need money. A good clinical trial is expensive. Most entities that fund them are only interested in finding cures that are profitable. It's unfortunate.

But you need a very long and expensive training.

Not necessarily. If you have an idea of what might work, just conduct a controlled experiment find out. You could try it on other animals first.

Are you twelve?

No.

You would need either a Ph.D in Biochemistry / Computational Biology / Chemistry.

Then you would need to join a Hematology / Oncology / Immunology Lab.

Different groups deal with novel therapeutic solutions for specific cancer types. It is very rare to find a lab that focuses on more than one.

For example, get your Ph.D, join a lab as an associate researcher.

If you're a real smartie, you will be spearheading a project and getting first authorship for in vitro studies. If you're more focused on career building, then you would look for co-authorship early on.

Once you complete a successful in vitro study, you would apply for further NIH grants and explain your scope. This is really, REALLY hard.

If your initial findings can be replicated in the timeframe of the grant stimulus you will move on to animal study, specficially nude mice. (Or bonobos, whichever your facility has.)

If you are at this stage, frankly, your lab / PI / group will be getting pharmaceutical offers to take it to clinical trials, which can last anywhere from 5-7 years.

From there, it gets more complicated.

This is not true. You need to be pretty brilliant.

So many dinguses run models & experiments and waste a shit ton of grant money.

You need to be truly bright for something to click.

And no, you're legally not allowed to try anything on animals first. It takes years to get to that stage.

>If your initial findings can be replicated in the timeframe of the grant stimulus you will move on to animal study, specficially nude mice. (Or bonobos, whichever your facility has.)

Cant he skip all of that, except the studying, get some money and make his own experiments on his own animals?

Go, go, gadget ad hominem!

Many older diseases were cured or eradicated with older technology and much less money than is currently spent on the current major diseases.

>And no, you're legally not allowed to try anything on animals first. It takes years to get to that stage.
That's a legal issue, though. You could do experiments overseas or in international waters if you wanted to get around it.. But this is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether you need to be smart.

That's called animal cruelty and will get you in trouble with the law.

How much weed do you toke before making a post?

Nope. It's nigh impossible at this point.

>Why provide an intelligent rebuttal when you can just respond with a generic insult? It's so much easier! Welcome to Veeky Forums!

Why?

>I don't understand jokes, I am this autistic!
What I mean is, do you have any idea how insane that sounds? Besides, have you ever heard of inter/pol/, pirates or extremist animal rights protesters (that would happily sink your floating lab)?

Wut. It's not just a legal "issue." You can't go into a random country and start animal experimentation. It's not that simple. Plus the fact that someone is dodging all the mechanisms to do proper experimentation is just a red flag that they're not capable.

He actually gave you an intelligent answer you were just too stupid to recognize it.

Not to mention the fact, anything produced from this (even if valid) no country would touch due to its negative press.

That being, illegal testing on animals, unqualified, etc.

You could do it without telling anyone, then when you find what works, do it again with public approval.

But this is irrelevant. The question was about whether you need to be smart to find medical solutions. If you have enough money, you can run your own experiments. If people really don't like what you're doing, you can just bribe the regulators.

>You could do it without telling anyone
Seriously, are you twelve?
>What are satellites?
>What is a navy?
>What interpol?
>What is pirates who don't care about the law?
You do know illegal labs do occur, for illegal produce, like meth. And guess what happens if the LEA find an illegal lab? They destroy it.

Also, you couldn't hide this scale of experimentation, nor could you source the money needed without backers (backers who wouldn't fund illegal labs).

>If people really don't like what you're doing, you can just bribe the regulators.
Holy fuck, are you really that stupid?

>Holy fuck, are you really that stupid?

Are you? You are literally talking out of your ass.

>Holy fuck, are you really that stupid?
It's called regulatory capture. Bribery of public officials happens constantly. That's why we have "lobbyists."

>nor could you source the money needed without backers (backers who wouldn't fund illegal labs).
Right, doing this requires much money, which was my original point.

Samefagging.

You're a retard, you think you can conduct illegal widespread (and probably time consuming) experimentation on animals, in international waters (or other nation states) and then pass it into the mainstream JUST by bribing people?

Grow the fuck up.

You need to build a seaborne lab, a LAB with equipment, animals, feed for your animals, etc. Of course it costs megamoney, you 'tard.

"Running an illegal lab experimenting on animals to cure cancer."

Yeah good luck with that.

And yeah you need to be smart to find medical solutions. You can't just dump shitloads of cash at your closet project and hope for it to turn up with "a cure."

Bribing regulators? Huh? These biomedical regulators don't give a shit about money. Literally zero fucks. They will hunt your ass down along with the government if they had a notion about what you planned to do.

You're wrong about the samefagging. Though the second post you quoted, and the one below it are both mine.

>You're a retard, you think you can conduct illegal widespread (and probably time consuming) experimentation on animals, in international waters (or other nation states) and then pass it into the mainstream JUST by bribing people?
What do you mean by "pass it into the mainstream?" People don't need to know anything about the experiments. Just redo them legally, once you know what works. And yes, you can bribe people if you want something done. That is how the government works.

>You need to build a seaborne lab, a LAB with equipment, animals, feed for your animals, etc. Of course it costs megamoney, you 'tard.
...Which was my original point. But you presented it as some sort of rebuttal...

>And yeah you need to be smart to find medical solutions.
That was the original point of contention here. But I don't find it particularly convincing if you just state it as fact. Many older diseases were cured or eradicated with much more primitive technology, sometimes just by observing natural trends and experimenting with them.

Why not B.O.W.s?

>What do you mean by "pass it into the mainstream?" People don't need to know anything about the experiments. Just redo them legally, once you know what works. And yes, you can bribe people if you want something done. That is how the government works.
Are you still not aware how insane you sound? What're you going to do, hire mercenaries to guard your illegal lab? Don't you think nation states will be interested in what you're doing in your illegal seaborne lab? Are you going to buy an eye-patch, white cat and tank shark for when James Bond breaks in?

This does not even need to be illegal. Experiments conducted on rodents happen all the time. But if you want to do it without regulation, just own some private land and raise rodents there. Any wealthy person with a mansion could have a mini-lab in it. They could also hire their own private security if they wanted.

>Don't you think nation states will be interested in what you're doing in your illegal seaborne lab?
Not necessarily, and it doesn't even have to be seaborne. You could do it privately in a private house in the US. Or go to some remote area in a country with a government that is less likely to get involved.

The idea of raising a bunch of rats and feeding them different things does not sound particularly outlandish to me.

>if they had a notion about what you planned to do.

Dont they technically already do?

They probably already profiled every single individual on this thread that advocated for such a position.

>>The idea of raising a bunch of rats and feeding them different things

>>cancer research

lol

>Because it works in rats means it'll work in humans.
You'd be better doing it with chimps and chimps cost money.

>Any wealthy person with a mansion could have a mini-lab in it. They could also hire their own private security if they wanted.
You just want to be a Bond villain don't you?

>The idea of raising a bunch of rats and feeding them different things does not sound particularly outlandish to me.
And this is your big idea for curing cancer?

To be frank, and brutally so, it just sounds like mad fantasy. If you were this wealthy, why not just do it yourself with shitposting? The issue here? You don't have any idea and you want some wealthy weirdo to give you a secret lab without having any knowledge?

TL;DR, seriously, I think you're twelve.

Start-up costs are too high.

You could just join a lab instead.

Genius

That'd mean he'd need to actually get an education, rather than shitpost on Veeky Forums about becoming a Bond villain.

You can find dozens of rat studies like that. Give them cancer and then feed them different diets and see what promotes or inhibits cancer the most. A study like that was already posted earlier in this thread.

>You'd be better doing it with chimps and chimps cost money.
Yeah, obviously. You start with rodents and work your way up to other primates and then clinical trials with humans.

>You just want to be a Bond villain don't you?
You just like ad hominem arguments, don't you?

>And this is your big idea for curing cancer?
This is not only my idea. There are dozens of studies already done like this, and many of them have found promising results. One such study was already posted earlier in this thread.

>To be frank, and brutally so, it just sounds like mad fantasy.
I see you are one of those people who likes to turn arguments into popularity contests. Maybe, if you can assert very strongly that I'm an idiot, that will have some effect on who is right. This is called "ad hominem."

OP here, aside from the argument taking up half the thread this has been very informative and helpful.

Thank you for your responses.

>You can find dozens of rat studies like that. Give them cancer and then feed them different diets and see what promotes or inhibits cancer the most. A study like that was already posted earlier in this thread.
>I want to do what everyone else is doing, only with no qualifications, no funding and limited knowledge.

>Yeah, obviously. You start with rodents and work your way up to other primates and then clinical trials with humans.
After you kill Bond before he exposes you, right?

>You just like ad hominem arguments, don't you?
You like regurgitating high school debate club jargon, don't you?

>This is not only my idea. There are dozens of studies already done like this, and many of them have found promising results. One such study was already posted earlier in this thread.
See the start of this reply.

>I see you are one of those people who likes to turn arguments into popularity contests.
How? You have no qualifications, no chance of getting funding; limited knowledge and from what I've read, aren't willing to actually put in the effort to get an education.

>Maybe, if you can assert very strongly that I'm an idiot, that will have some effect on who is right.
You're a moronic, lazy; effete, plebeian brainlet. Good enough?

>This is called "ad hominem."
>This is called "muh Latinate phrase, see how smart I am."
Noli timere, I'm here to set you straight.

>Post scriptum:
>I went to a grammar school (UK) and was forced to learn Latin.

>You like regurgitating high school debate club jargon, don't you?
Describing what I'm doing does not invalidate it. You're insulting me, which is irrelevant to the discussion. Stating how stupid or immature you think I am has no effect on the truth of my statements.

Apparently the idea of raising a bunch of rats and feeding them different diets is so outlandish to you, you would compare it to a Bond villain.

>How? You have no qualifications, no chance of getting funding;
>no chance of getting funding
That was my original point. If you have enough money, you can fund things yourself. Now you've essentially restated my original point to me, but as a rebuttal...to the point itself.

Are you that retarded?

>Describing what I'm doing does not invalidate it.
It does when you have no to limited professional knowledge, no qualification and no funding.

>You're insulting me, which is irrelevant to the discussion.
No, I'm telling you why you're stupid (see post above for details).

>The idea of raising a bunch of rats and feeding them different diets is so outlandish to you.
No, not the idea. The fact you, qualified and unfunded want to do what qualified and well funded professionals are doing, without any (to limited) knowledge of the field.

Now, that IS outlandish.

>you would compare it to a Bond villain.
>I want to have a secret lab.
>Perhaps out in the ocean.
>With security.
>Or perhaps in a secret mansion.
That literally sounds like the plan of a Bond villain.

>That was my original point. If you have enough money, you can fund things yourself. Now you've essentially restated my original point to me, but as a rebuttal...to the point itself.
It's called reductio ad absurdum, which I'm surprised you don't know, with your apparent debate club Latin.

>Are you that retarded?
Ah, it continues. Even though you joked about it, you continue. You think that, if you just insult me enough, you will be right.

>No, not the idea. The fact you, qualified and unfunded want to do what qualified and well funded professionals are doing, without any (to limited) knowledge of the field.
So you're saying it is impossible for one to run one's own lab because I (personally) am unqualified. Again, that is ad hominem and invalid. You don't know if I'm actually unqualified, you're just asserting it. I could even become qualified in the future, assuming that I am not now. Or someone who is already qualified could run their own lab, because I do not need to be the only person in this scenario.

But raising your own rats in a large basement is a ridiculous idea and no one could ever do it because one random guy on the internet appears to be unqualified, according to you.

By writing a official book of ethics. If you don't like it, tough titties.

>Using a straw-man, this is your posts entire fallacy:
I never once used the absolute that NO ONE could achieve this, only that you (qualified, lacking in knowledge and funding could not and attain results).

>Being unqualified.
Painfully obvious; showing a lack of knowledge, asking about how to achieve this (on Veeky Forums) and lacking a general sense of realism.

>A large basement.
Nice way to recant, too bad your previous shit is recorded for all eternity on Veeky Forums and various archiving sites.

>I could become qualified.
Do that then and then you'll have the knowledge to get funding and access to a lab without having to result to Bond villian-tier tactics.

>Muh Latinate Latin!
Cute, keep it up.

>>Muh Latinate Latin!
>Cute, keep it up.
Telling me that I'm using a Latin term does not make your ad hominem argument more valid. You continue to insult me; I mention that this has no effect on the truth of my statements; and your response is to simply describe what I am doing. Yes, I am referring to a Latin term. That does not make your ad hominem remarks more valid.

>I never once used the absolute that NO ONE could achieve this, only that you (qualified, lacking in knowledge and funding could not and attain results).
So, we're done then. You admit that my idea is valid, you just don't think I (personally) could do it because you are convinced that I am unqualified and lacking in knowledge. You are very intent on asserting how incompetent you think I am.

However, I am glad that you agree with my claim, even if you think that I (personally) would not be the right person to do it.

>Nice way to recant, too bad your previous shit is recorded for all eternity on Veeky Forums and various archiving sites.
Yes, to win this argument, all you have to do is assert that I have contradicted myself. Assert that I am incompetent and that I have contradicted myself. You repeatedly try to change this from an argument about what is true to an argument about me.

>asking about how to achieve this (on Veeky Forums)
I never asked anything.

>asking about how to achieve this (on Veeky Forums)
I'm OP, I hope you don't think the guy you're arguing with is me. You're arguing with some other user, I only made the OP and one post in this thread.

Well fuck, that would explain why this troll is trolling so hard.

>Telling me that I'm using a Latin term does not make your ad hominem argument more valid. You continue to insult me; I mention that this has no effect on the truth of my statements; and your response is to simply describe what I am doing. Yes, I am referring to a Latin term. That does not make your ad hominem remarks more valid.
I'm so autistic, I don't understand light-heartedness.

>Yes, to win this argument, all you have to do is assert that I have contradicted myself. Assert that I am incompetent and that I have contradicted myself. You repeatedly try to change this from an argument about what is true to an argument about me.
Do you even know what we're arguing about?

Anyway, I'm gong to stop bothering now as it is clearly painful you're a troll, as per:

Messed up the link.

>Well fuck, that would explain why this troll is trolling so hard.
Yep, call me a troll. That's the insult that will make you right.

>Do you even know what we're arguing about?
Yes. The following was my post that initiated this chain: My next post was this: My claim, from the beginning, was simply that you can do your own research if you have enough money, and you don't need to be a genius to get results. You chose to pick a fight over that and compare me to a Bond villain.

>become ceo of multinational patent troll
>set minion scientists to work creating cure
>patent cure, troll the world and sell only to desperate dying billionaires

I would double major in biophysics & biochem

like If it wasn't like that currently, duh

Remove Veeky Forums

In what retarded world does a patent troll have a team of competent scientists?

ITT: a happy new year has already started.

first post best post. Nowadays problem with science has nothing to do with science itself, but with politics. Current Year politicians prefer to invest money on welfare for immigrants and human failures instead of investing better that money on science (something that benefits humanity as a whole instead of just the lowest of the low).

Just use the model theory to calculate what would be the best way to reach your goal.

Five-star post bump.

>There is no degredation in digital data

Wow look at this fucking faggot