I am intrigued by the scientific approach to treat cancer almost more than the genus process of the disease itself. It seems as if science and the disease are in a never-ending game of chess--one that has no time limit and "check mate" causes neither side to wilt. As much thought and effort goes into discovering oncogenes and inhibiting or altering the expression of such genes, sometimes a new, albeit illogical approach, can still push the scientific community in the right direction.
In particular, Gerard Evan (link) describes a different approach to sequestering the expression of the Myc gene, which has been proven to be a significant oncogene. Several studies have focused on controlling Myc via other nononcogenic genes that are responsible for helping Myc transform other cells. In tumors "in which a switchable transgenic form of oncogenic Myc is used to drive... formation...inactivation of transgenic Myc in such tumors triggers dramatic regression" (Evans). The concept of this approach is to not target Myc directly, but rather certain transgenes that are used in the same pathways.
It is fascinating, and quite unintuitive, to acknowledge that a therapy can be effective for treating a certain oncogene by not targeting that gene. I think this is amazing considering that certain oncogenes have fast rates of mutations that seemingly render even the most novel treatments obsolete in years, if not months. This type of approach to understanding--and optimistically speaking, "solving" cancer--could elucidate the therapeutic approach. What if the oncogenes could be inhibited by easier targets? Most scientists would pessimistically acknowledge that even such progress would be thwarted by cancer's ever elusive evolution, but that should not extinguish the fire for alternative thinking. In the future, is it possible to derive some ultimate algorithm (having studied all possible evasion pathways of cancer) and hit cancer cells with "a one punch knockout"?
I could not help but think that perhaps trying to treat each gene specifically actually promotes cancer's evolution and in many respects renders this approach detrimental. If we can employ alternative methods for targeting these oncogenes, perhaps we can curb cancer's elusive nature, even if it is to the slightest degree. The mentioned article is not so much intriguing because of its scientific content--the type of thinking behind it is what should motivate all of science, and quite frankly, remind us why this field is so inspirational.
