Science holds its last great mysteries up to the light [top 25 unanswered questions]

SCIENCE has come a long way since Thomas Edison founded the leading research journal of that name in 1880. But many of the greatest scientific mysteries, from the nature of the cosmos to the secrets of the human genetic code, still baffle us.

To mark the 125th anniversary of Science, its editors have compiled 125 “big questions” that show the extent to which humanity still struggles to understand our Universe. Although the list is not meant to be exhaustive, it offers an insight into the fields that will be illuminated over the next 125 years.

All are subjects already under investigation, and at least some are likely to produce compelling answers in the foreseeable future.

Science examines 25 of the questions in particular detail in today’s edition. There is no league table, but pride of place goes to the issue of what the Universe is made. Current thinking is that the visible matter so far detected makes up just 5 per cent of the Universe’s mass, with the remainder composed of mysterious “dark matter” and even more elusive “dark energy”.

Other prominent posers include the biological basis of consciousness, a question that troubled the philosopher René Descartes in the 17th century, and for which scientists are little closer to supplying a definitive solution. Many of the questions involve genetics: how genes affect a person’s susceptibility to disease, and how so few human genes can account for such intricate biology.

It was originally thought that human beings have about 100,000 genes, but the mapping of the human genome has shown this estimate to be four times too high. Our 25,000 genes are fewer than both the puffer fish and a tiny plant called Arabidopsis thaliana.

The journal wants to know whether the two greatest theories in physics — quantum mechanics and relativity — can ever be unified. The former makes supremely accurate predictions at the smallest of scales, and the latter at the largest, but they appear to be incompatible under current knowledge.

Other questions include whether it is possible to prolong human life routinely beyond 100, and whether there is an upper limit; which genetic changes made people human; how altruism evolved; and how memories are formed and stored.

Issues with immediate political relevance include how hot the world will get under the influence of global warming, and whether an effective HIV vaccine will be developed.

Perhaps most intriguing of all are the matters of how life on Earth began, and whether we are alone in the Universe. There are plenty of theories, but no firm answers.

Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, said: “Today, science’s most profound questions address some of the largest phenomena in the cosmos and some of the smallest. We may never fully answer some of these questions, but we will advance our knowledge and society in the process of trying.”

Science is the world’s best-selling research journal and is considered, with its British-based rival Nature, to be the most prestigious. Its first issue, on July 3, 1880, featured articles on the potential of electric trains and advice to science teachers on studying animal brains.

Where did you get the absurd notion that cancer mainly strikes people over child-bearing years?

On average, each person who dies from cancer loses an estimated 15 years of life.

National Cancer Institute

The source of HIV is almost purely behavioral, and thus far more preventable and far less in need of a vaccine.

The source of HIV is a virus. In North America, the risk is pretty slim if you don't engage in a few high-risk behaviors, but the rest of the world isn't North America. And there are behavioral factors in cancer as well -- giving up tobacco use, for starters.

>The cause of cancer is still undetermined. Some pathologists and oncologists believe it is rooted in a virus, others in genetic failure, others in environmental toxins.

Or various combinations of the above. The evidence for some environmental hazards (tobacco smoke, radiation, sun exposure) is clear. The evidence of genetic and viral factors is emerging, but looks strong.

But this much is known about cancer: that it is an uncontrolled increase in the number of malignant cells attacking the vital cells. Once they find a cure/vaccine for ONE type of cancer, it will set up a rapid domino effect for all other types.

That's a supposition on your part. What seems clear to me is that different cancers form by different mechanisms, and it's looking increasingly unlikely that one "silver bullet" will emerge that will keep them all from forming or contain them all once they do.

I don't know how you can honestly claim that finding a vaccine for HIV is more important than finding a vaccine for cancer.

Show me an area with 25 million cancer patients, any of whom could spread cancer to others. That's the UN estimate for sub-Saharan Africa.

First, this:
"On average, each person who dies from cancer loses an estimated 15 years of life,"

is a misleading statement. It does not necessarily mean that each person who died from cancer was elderly and would have only lived 15 more years. That statistic also takes into account the statistic that IF each person who died from a cancer had not died at the time they did, they would probably have died within 15 years. This is due to weakened immune systems and other factors. Age is irrelevant. This is why the statistic of likelihood of death for survivors for nearly all cancers reduces in five-year cycles. Simply put, if you're still alive after 5 years, you have X% of living another five. If after 10 years, X+X% of living another five years, etc.

As I and others and you have stated, HIV is spread through behavioral choices resulting in the transmission of bodily fluids. Those who have it and those likely to get it, regardless of the ostensibly alarming numbers you quote, is a finite number in that it is limited to those who engage in the "risky" behaviors (unprotected sex, intravenous drug use). The unfortunate numbers of those infected who do not engage in those behaviors (the victims of deceit in sexual relationships, rape, recipients of infected transfusions) is very small.

Your original post made the point of wanting to find a vaccine for HIV for "Darwinian" reasons. Well, for purely cold, "Darwinian" reasons, the race would be better off without the numbers who are willfully spreading HIV. How has this risky behavior and its consequences benefited society or the human race? It hasn't. It is purely destructive.

But the above is not an argument that I would like to make. My goal is to eliminate the greatest suffering from the greatest number of people. To me, cancer strikes those who may have lived the "perfectly healthy" life, whatever that may be. HIV tends to strike those who are largely aware of the risks, who make a choice to engage in a behavior.

To me, our time and finances, our scientific and medicinal effort has a greater worldwide and generational benefit by being spent on finding a cure/vaccine for cancer than for HIV.

I believe it is this qualitative issue where you and I disagree. So be it.

First, this: "On average, each person who dies from cancer loses an estimated 15 years of life,"

is a misleading statement. It does not necessarily mean that each person who died from cancer was elderly and would have only lived 15 more years.

Of course not. It's an average. But HIV not only claims more years of life per patient, it's often passed on to children.

And just to clarify, I'm not arguing against cancer funding or that funds should be reallocated from cancer to HIV. This argument is an idle exercise over the top 25 questions in science, and I'd certainly hope that science as a whole is looking into a lot more than 25. We're a big enough country to walk and chew gum at the same time.

As I and others and you have stated, HIV is spread through behavioral choices resulting in the transmission of bodily fluids. Those who have it and those likely to get it, regardless of the ostensibly alarming numbers you quote, is a finite number in that it is limited to those who engage in the "risky" behaviors (unprotected sex, intravenous drug use). The unfortunate numbers of those infected who do not engage in those behaviors (the victims of deceit in sexual relationships, rape, recipients of infected transfusions) is very small.

Your original post made the point of wanting to find a vaccine for HIV for "Darwinian" reasons. Well, for purely cold, "Darwinian" reasons, the race would be better off without the numbers who are willfully spreading HIV. How has this risky behavior and its consequences benefited society or the human race? It hasn't. It is purely destructive.

In North America. The journal's stated issue was human questions, not American questions. In Africa, the only way to avoid "risky behavior" is to avoid unprotected sex with anyone, ever. I don't think I need to explain why that is selected against. If the alternative to death is celibacy, it amounts to the same thing after a generation.

But the above is not an argument that I would like to make. My goal is to eliminate the greatest suffering from the greatest number of people. To me, cancer strikes those who may have lived the "perfectly healthy" life, whatever that may be. HIV tends to strike those who are largely aware of the risks, who make a choice to engage in a behavior.

If you subtract smokers and sunbathers, who knowingly engage in risky behavior, from the rolls of "innocent" cancer patients, I'd wager that there are more "innocents" with HIV than cancer worldwide.

To me, our time and finances, our scientific and medicinal effort has a greater worldwide and generational benefit by being spent on finding a cure/vaccine for cancer than for HIV.

I disagree, primarily because HIV is infectious and cancer isn't. AIDS in this country hasn't lived up to the most dire predictions from the '80s, in part because educational efforts have been fairly successful, and in part because it entered the US in insular pockets of the population, and has remained mostly contained.

But when 25 million people on one continent are carriers of a virus that mutates rapidly, there's a potential pandemic waiting to happen. That's 25 million walking petri dishes that could form a variant that spreads through casual or semi-casual (think mono) contact. Even without that mutation, it's whistling past the graveyard to believe that an infectious agent that is endemic on one continent will stay more or less contained there.

I believe it is this qualitative issue where you and I disagree. So be it.

Fair enough, and I thank you for presenting well-thought-out and civil arguments.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.