Jay Bradner: Open-source cancer research

Jay Bradner: Open-source cancer research

www.ted.com How does cancer know it’s cancer? At Jay Bradner’s lab, they found a molecule that might hold the answer, JQ1 — and instead of patenting JQ1, they published their findings and mailed samples to 40 other labs to work on. An inspiring look at the open-source future of medical research.TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the “Sixth Sense” wearable tech, and “Lost” producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at http

25 Replies to “Jay Bradner: Open-source cancer research”

  1. I understand the death of cancer is very sad. but i believe that cancer is easibly curable. i think it is all a big fat lie to tell u the truth. proffesionals are unable to remove cancer from a human but they can create something like what you are using right now. how they mind a computer is mind boggling compare that to curing cancer and its suppose to be a peice of cake to get rid of

  2. Chemist: Sir, I found the cure for cancer.
    Boss: Oh I’m sorry.
    Chemist: Uhh, I said I found the cure for cancer…
    Boss: Yes I know, and we will out of job because of that.
    Chemist: I think I haven’t found the cure for cancer.
    Boss: Wheew, that’s good.

  3. Haha light and beautiful. Social agendas?! OooOOo they might pay taxes, havkids, visit each other in the hospital, get married and divorced, go out for steak, retire and get a yauht

  4. Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.

    A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.

    The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves “gay”.

    Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it’s an effective way to push a social agenda.

  5. My brother is 39 and has a “very agressive cancer!” as all the doctors and “brilliant minds” said. My family and himself went to a doctor who is still labaled as a “quack” and guess what? He’s getting better and better without radiation/chemo. There is a cure for cancer but the problem is not a cure. The problem is profit. They will keep searching for a miracle and the miracle is already here. check out: Dr. Simoncini, Sodium Carbonate, B17, (perhaps along with chemotherapy) etc… cancer=fungus

  6. @datworkers

    “No wonder cancer has not been completely cured.”

    It hasn’t been cured because of its sheer complexity. Every cancer is different. Even the same cancer in different patients can be different. To say cancer hasn’t been cured because of not sharing information is simply ignorant.

  7. @guyben13 I know that pharmaceutical companies are selfish, but in a capitalist world, you can’t have it other way for now. Anyway, what it is presented in this video is a good start for a change. But remember: you need a lot of hundreds of millions of $ to develope tens of thousands of drug types a year. For now, we need those corporations to create drugs. Let this idea presented here to evolve, and we will see what comes of it. It may work, in may not work, time will tell.

  8. @guyben13 Many drugs used in chemotherapy for example can have serious sides effects, like aplastic anemia, of agranulocytosis or even some types of cancers. You do not play with something like this, that is why you need it to be properly tested in the proper manner and in an controlled environment. Plus, the patient can die from the treatment, if you don’t manage his condition respecting the protocols in use for the specific treatments.

  9. @siegfried182005 I KNOW it’s illegal. I’m saying that it’s WRONG for it to be illegal. The fact that it’s illegal costs lives, AND inhibits drug development, AND pushes up the price of those drugs that do get developed.

    It should be legal. That way university researchers could help develop life saving drugs, instead of limiting research to HUGE conglomerates. That way you could test natural compounds (such as penicillin and dog saliva (used for rabis)) even tough they aren’t patentable.

  10. @guyben13 It is illegal what you say there; i would go directly to jail for that. It is not possible to administrate a drug tested only on mice to humans without any other data of the possible adverse effects, the pharmacocinetic and the pharmacodynamics of the substance in humans and many others. There are some phases trough which a drug has to pass before it gets the green light:).

  11. Marijuana cures cancer. Google the documentary, “What if cannabis cured cancer?” Our governments known about it since 1974. Look it up if you dont believe me, dont be a closed-minded idiot. EDUCATE YOURSELF!

  12. @datworkers No, they can’t share. Since developing drugs is so expensive (thanks to over regulation), they have to get backing money to do the research. Thus, the research doesn’t belong to them – it belongs to the shareholders. this means they are not allowed to publish the partial result of their research, and are not allowed to give others permission to do followup on their work. Legally not allowed, mind you – they could go to prison for it.

    Yes, this inhibits research. Capitalism…

  13. @siegfried182005 As a doctor: lets say you have a sick patient, going do die in a couple of months. There is no cure for him. However, there is a new drug that seems to do well on mice. Should he be allowed to try it, and maybe die, or should he just die?

    I agree that you shouldn’t open the door too wide: For one, You shouldn’t allow payment for untested drugs. And maybe only for the terminally ill. But the system as it is now is broken. It actively inhibits life saving drug development.

  14. @guyben13 Yes, they were tested this way, but now we are in the 21 st century, and we have strict regulations of what drugs come out on the market. We can’t risk another thalidomide accident. This things just have to be taken slowly. It is clearly an ethical problem too: put out there an add about a “new cure” and you will surely have a queue on your door. I, as a future doctor, want to give my patients some kind of assurance that the drugs that i give them have positive results.

  15. @guyben13 That is what those companies in the countries mentioned above are using today: they know that anyone with money and very ill will do anything to live, and they offer an untested alternative to them, of course, not after cashing the check. There is no guaranties that the treatment is effective, and also on this pathway you open the road for those with all kinds of homeopathic drugs to make money literally from simple water.

  16. Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.

    A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.

    Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it’s an effective way to push a social agenda.

  17. @siegfried182005 Hitler did experiments on people AGAINST THEIR WILL. The comparison is just wrong. Why not allow people who WANT to participate in drug trial, people who will die soon anyway, take or try whatever they want?

    To remind you, the rabis vaccine, penicillin, and virtually all the old medication were tested this way. Tested on people who were sick, were gonna die, and decided to try a new drug that might kill them, but might save them too. Comparing that to Hitler… really.

Leave a Reply