Computer giant Microsoft recently made the bold claim that within a decade its scientists will “solve the problem of cancer” through the revolutionary use of computer science techniques that ostensibly will allow researchers to break the code of cancerous cells and reprogram them to be healthy once more.
The only problem is that Microsoft isn’t really addressing the root causes of the disease in the process, and is instead implementing an after the fact “solution.” More on that in a moment.
In what many see as a major shift in direction for the technology titan, Microsoft claims that it has put together a “small army” of the world’s foremost programmers, engineers and biologists who will look at cancer like it was a bug in a computer system.
Over the summer, the company opened its first wet lab where it plans to test findings of researchers who are working on big maps that lay out the internal operations of networks of cells, the UK’s Telegraph reported.
In addition, researchers are also developing a computer actually made from DNA that could exist within cells, and whose job would be to look for defects like cancer in body functions and internal networks. If it determines that cancerous conditions exist, it will essentially reboot the network system to clear out diseased cells.
Reprogramming cells may have potential, but it’s only half the issue
“I think it’s a very natural thing for Microsoft to be looking at because we have tremendous expertise in computer science and what is going on in cancer is a computational problem,” said Microsoft research lab director Chris Bishop.
He added that it wasn’t simply an analogy but rather “deep mathematical insight.” He admitted that computing and biology might seem like “chalk and cheese” to most people, but in reality they have much in common “on the most fundamental level.”
The group of biological computer experts gathered at Microsoft Research are in the process of building molecular computers from DNA that work like a physician to locate, then destroy, cancer cells. The leader of the group, Andrew Philips, described the project as “long-term,” but believes that technically, what they are attempting to accomplish is feasible in five to 10 years time.
To be sure, the project is ambitious. Already, the research group has developed software that copies a cell’s healthy behavior so that it can be contrasted with the behavior of a diseased cell in order to help figure out where a problem lies and how to address it. This tool, called a Bio Model Analyser, is already in use assisting researchers in the understanding of how to better treat leukemia.
Dr. Jasmin Fisher, an associate professor and senior researcher at Cambridge University in Cambridge, England, told the Telegraph that if it’s possible to regulate and control cancer, then it is more likely that “any chronic disease” could also be dealt with using the same techniques, thus solving a host of medical problems.
“I think for some of the cancers five years, but definitely within a decade. Then we will probably have a century free of cancer,” she said.
To really solve the problem of cancer, nutrition needs to be a part of the equation
But again, this approach, while novel and potentially successful, misses a big part of the problem. A goal of any research effort ought to include ways to prevent cancers from developing in the first place. And that will require dismissing old, disproven medical “treatments” like chemotherapy which result in a 50-percent death rate, and embracing new ideas like promoting better nutrition, as Natural News founder Mike Adams, the Health Ranger and author of the book, Food Forensics, has long advocated.
In a recent interview with cancer researcher Ty Bollinger, Adams said:
“The modern mainstream medical community … think that your body is somehow disconnected from what you feed your body, which is astonishing, completely irrational, illogical, unscientific.”
Both he and Bollinger noted that medical doctors, some with more than a dozen years of education and training, have only a few hours’ worth of instruction pertaining to nutrition, and even then it is not aimed at how better nutrition can serve as a defense against cancer and other diseases.
Watch the short interview here.