Dr. James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA helix and father of the Human Genome Project, became the first human to receive the data encompassing his personal genome sequence at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston in this May 31, 2007 file photo.

NEW YORK | Wed Jan 9, 2013 6:34am EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A day after an exhaustive national report on cancer found the United States is making only slow progress against the disease, one of the country's most iconic - and iconoclastic - scientists weighed in on "the war against cancer." And he does not like what he sees.

James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, lit into targets large and small. On government officials who oversee cancer research, he wrote in a paper published on Tuesday in the journal Open Biology, "We now have no general of influence, much less power ... leading our country's War on Cancer."

On the $100 million U.S. project to determine the DNA changes that drive nine forms of cancer: It is "not likely to produce the truly breakthrough drugs that we now so desperately need," Watson argued. On the idea that antioxidants such as those in colorful berries fight cancer: "The time has come to seriously ask whether antioxidant use much more likely causes than prevents cancer."

That Watson's impassioned plea came on the heels of the annual cancer report was coincidental. He worked on the paper for months, and it represents the culmination of decades of thinking about the subject. Watson, 84, taught a course on cancer at Harvard University in 1959, three years before he shared the Nobel Prize in medicine for his role in discovering the double helix, which opened the door to understanding the role of genetics in disease.

Other cancer luminaries gave Watson's paper mixed reviews.

"There are a lot of interesting ideas in it, some of them sustainable by existing evidence, others that simply conflict with well-documented findings," said one eminent cancer biologist who asked not to be identified so as not to offend Watson. "As is often the case, he's stirring the pot, most likely in a very productive way."

There is wide agreement, however, that current approaches are not yielding the progress they promised. Much of the decline in cancer mortality in the United States, for instance, reflects the fact that fewer people are smoking, not the benefits of clever new therapies.

GENETIC HOPES

"The great hope of the modern targeted approach was that with DNA sequencing we would be able to find what specific genes, when mutated, caused each cancer," said molecular biologist Mark Ptashne of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The next step was to design a drug to block the runaway proliferation the mutation caused.

But almost none of the resulting treatments cures cancer. "These new therapies work for just a few months," Watson told Reuters in a rare interview. "And we have nothing for major cancers such as the lung, colon and breast that have become metastatic."

The main reason drugs that target genetic glitches are not cures is that cancer cells have a work-around. If one biochemical pathway to growth and proliferation is blocked by a drug such as AstraZeneca's Iressa or Genentech's Tarceva for non-small-cell lung cancer, said cancer biologist Robert Weinberg of MIT, the cancer cells activate a different, equally effective pathway.

That is why Watson advocates a different approach: targeting features that all cancer cells, especially those in metastatic cancers, have in common.

One such commonality is oxygen radicals. Those forms of oxygen rip apart other components of cells, such as DNA. That is why antioxidants, which have become near-ubiquitous additives in grocery foods from snack bars to soda, are thought to be healthful: they mop up damaging oxygen radicals.

That simple picture becomes more complicated, however, once cancer is present. Radiation therapy and many chemotherapies kill cancer cells by generating oxygen radicals, which trigger cell suicide. If a cancer patient is binging on berries and other antioxidants, it can actually keep therapies from working, Watson proposed.

"Everyone thought antioxidants were great," he said. "But I'm saying they can prevent us from killing cancer cells."

'ANTI-ANTIOXIDANTS'

Research backs him up. A number of studies have shown that taking antioxidants such as vitamin E do not reduce the risk of cancer but can actually increase it, and can even shorten life. But drugs that block antioxidants - "anti-antioxidants" - might make even existing cancer drugs more effective.

Anything that keeps cancer cells full of oxygen radicals "is likely an important component of any effective treatment," said cancer biologist Robert Benezra of Sloan-Kettering.

Watson's anti-antioxidant stance includes one historical irony. The first high-profile proponent of eating lots of antioxidants (specifically, vitamin C) was biochemist Linus Pauling, who died in 1994 at age 93. Watson and his lab mate, Francis Crick, famously beat Pauling to the discovery of the double helix in 1953.

One elusive but promising target, Watson said, is a protein in cells called Myc. It controls more than 1,000 other molecules inside cells, including many involved in cancer. Studies suggest that turning off Myc causes cancer cells to self-destruct in a process called apoptosis.

"The notion that targeting Myc will cure cancer has been around for a long time," said cancer biologist Hans-Guido Wendel of Sloan-Kettering. "Blocking production of Myc is an interesting line of investigation. I think there's promise in that."

Targeting Myc, however, has been a backwater of drug development. "Personalized medicine" that targets a patient's specific cancer-causing mutation attracts the lion's share of research dollars.

"The biggest obstacle" to a true war against cancer, Watson wrote, may be "the inherently conservative nature of today's cancer research establishments." As long as that's so, "curing cancer will always be 10 or 20 years away."

(Reporting by Sharon Begley; Editing by Jilian Mincer and Peter Cooney)

View the original article here

n">(Reuters) - James Bond is back and better than ever, according to early reviews on Friday, as the latest movie featuring Britain's smooth-talking, martini-drinking super-spy soared with critics and audiences after an advance screening in London.

Newspaper critics rushed to print and celebrities took to Twitter after seeing "Skyfall," with many calling it the best Bond film in the franchise's 50-year history.

Reviewer Robbie Collin at British newspaper The Telegraph said director Sam Mendes' Bond was comparable to Christopher Nolan's darker, grittier "Batman" from the "Dark Knight" franchise.

"Mendes is unafraid to let the quieter dramatic moments breathe ... and ace cinematographer Roger Deakins makes the wildly ambitious action sequences the most beautiful in Bond's 50-year career," Collin said.

Geoffrey McNab at the Independent gave "Skyfall" four out of five stars, criticizing the film for being "occasionally ... repetitive." But he praised Mendes for "throwing in far greater depth of characterization than we're accustomed to in a series of films that are often proudly superficial."

"Skyfall," the 23rd film in the Bond franchise, opens in UK theaters on October 26 and in the United States on November 9. It is Mendes' first time directing a Bond film. The British filmmaker won a best director Oscar in 2000 for "American Beauty."

The 22 Bond films have to date amassed $5.1 billion at the worldwide box office according to The-Numbers.com, which tracks box office performances. The last film, 2008's "Quantum of Solace," grossed nearly $600 million globally.

"Skyfall," produced by privately held studio MGM, will be distributed in the UK by Sony Pictures Entertainment and in the United States by Columbia Pictures, both units of Sony Corp.

"Skyfall" sees actor Daniel Craig return as the suave agent, on a mission to bring down a dangerous villain, played by Javier Bardem. Judi Dench returns in the role of "M" along with co-stars Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw, while Naomie Harris and Berenice Marlohe became the latest Bond girls.

Baz Bamigboye at the Daily Mail gave "Skyfall" five stars on Friday, calling it "pure classic 007 fare, back on firm footing after the less than memorable 'Quantum of Solace.'"

Reviewers on Twitter praised the explosive action scenes, Mendes' directing, Dench's darker portrayal of "M" and Bardem's turn at playing a Bond villain.

British GQ magazine tweeted: "Just seen #skyfall. Daniel Craig is magnificent - you will not be disappointed." The Times film critic Kate Muir tweeted that she gave "Skyfall" five stars, calling it "a return to classic form and a great British bulldog of a movie."

BBC Radio 1's film critic Rhianna Dhillon tweeted: "WOW! You have a massive treat in store for you! Don't want to review it on air in case I give anything away! It's just so good!"

British comedian Graham Norton, who hosts a TV talk show on BBC 1, tweeted: "Skyfall is perfection!!!!!"

(Reporting by Piya Sinha-Roy in Los Angeles, editing by Jill Serjeant and Eric Beech)

View the original article here

NEW YORK | Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:33pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Metropolitan Opera music director James Levine will return to the conducting podium in May 2013 - initially in a wheelchair - after a fall more than a year ago that left him partially paralyzed, the New York opera house said on Friday.

Levine, 69, who has been the Met's music director since 1976, will conduct the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra at Carnegie Hall in May 2013, before leading three operas during the Met's 2013-14 season, the Met said in a statement.

Met General Manager Peter Gelb called Levine's return to conducting "great news for opera lovers throughout the world," while Levine said: "I'm looking forward more than I can say to getting back to work."

Levine has been in long-term rehabilitation since injuring his spine in a fall while on vacation in August 2011 that required surgery and left him partially paralyzed.

While his upper body strength has returned, his injuries have left him temporarily unable to walk.

The Met said that for the time being, he will conduct from a motorized wheelchair. In anticipation of Levine's return, the Met's technical department is designing customized, elevating podiums that will be utilized on the Carnegie Hall stage and in the Met's orchestra pit.

Levine referred to the "long healing process" from his spine injury, but said he feels better with each passing day.

For the 2013-14 season, Levine is scheduled to conduct a new production of Verdi's "Falstaff" and revivals of Mozart's "Cosi fan tutte" and Berg's "Wozzeck."

The Met said that in recent weeks, Levine has gradually been taking on more of his duties as music director, including coaching members of the organization's young artist development program and holding artistic planning sessions.

His physician, Dr. Len Horovitz, who coordinates his medical team, said Levine was "an inspirational case, whose return to conducting will be a result of remarkable perseverance and hard work."

Levine made his debut with the company in 1971 and has conducted 2,441 performances there, more than anyone in the company's 129-year history. His last performance as a conductor was of Wagner's "Die Walküre" on May 14, 2011.

(Reporting By Ellen Freilich; Editing by Jill Serjeant and Eric Walsh)

View the original article here

Thu Aug 9, 2012 9:16am EDT

n">(Reuters) - Things are tough in Britain, and meaningful help most certainly is not on the way.

There were three main messages coming out of the Bank of England's gloomy Inflation Report, and Mervyn King's press conference afterwards:

First - growth and inflation are falling sharply, with zero growth expected this year and every chance inflation over the medium term will fail to hit the Bank of England's 2 percent target.

Second - the BOE is both puzzled by this and intends to do very little about it.

Third - the BOE doubts, in some respects, the value of the steps it could take.

This simply goes to show the limits of monetary policy during a massive global deleveraging, especially one, like our own, in which banks are being kept on life support rather than allowed to sink or float on their own merits.

"We will get back but it's quite impossible to know over what time period. There is no historical precedent of an event of this kind leading permanently to the end of economic growth and I don't think it will here either," King told reporters, but added: "There is still a long way to go".

The bank's forecasts have certainly come a long way in a short time. In May it was predicting 0.8 percent growth for the year. Its mid-range forecast for inflation now shows it below the 2 percent target for most of the next three years, a figure that takes as an input a market assumption of one more cut in rates next year, from a half a percent to 0.25 percent.

Even King is not so sure this will help: "I don't think a change in Bank rate is going to make much of a difference. It's going to be more counterproductive than not at this point."

He expressed concern that lower rates would hurt margins at some banks, further impairing them and theoretically making loans, already scarce, that much harder to get. That's because many loans in Britain are tied to the official rate, but bank funding in the markets, rather than tracking the base rate, is being driven by perceptions of bank risk. Monetary policy transmission is impaired, and gets worse every time markets begin to worry more about the state of the euro zone.

HIGH DEBTS, HIGH PAIN

That makes more quantitative easing a more likely outcome, but neither the report nor the press conference gave the impression that much was on the way.

There is also the question as to how effective QE has been and can be. The BOE is extremely reluctant to infringe on government's right to run fiscal policy, and so direct Zimbabwe-style financing of the deficit seems unlikely. While it is debatable how much of a buffer QE has provided, the fact remains that growth since the onset of the great financial crisis has been abysmal in Britain. A Bank of England study from earlier this year maintains that QE has pushed rates down by about 150 basis points and increased asset values by 20 percent over what they already would have been, implying a peak impact on real GDP of about 2 percent by the middle of 2011.

That's impressive, but only underscores exactly how difficult Britain's position is. It is in the midst of an austerity which is certainly making things worse in the near term. Moreover the size of its debts, public and private, and the composition of its economy make it particularly vulnerable.

On a total debt-to-GDP basis Britain is carrying a heavier load than Spain and Greece, much less the U.S. Its financial sector, which is much too large for its economy, desperately needs to shrink, both because the rest of the world is no longer interested in providing it with cheap funding, and as a matter of safety for the economy. While its manufacturing sector has done well recently, the threat of a euro-led slowdown in global demand is real. Households too are neck deep in debt and not able to serve as the engine of growth.

To be sure, Britain is no Greece or Spain. It has its own currency to devalue, and its own central bank to serve as a lender of last resort. That makes a euro-style financing crisis less likely. It does not make the road back to sustainability all that much less long.

Britain isn't just trying to come to terms with its own debt burden and banking system, it is trying to do it while the rest of the world does the exact same thing.

Growth and inflation may be subdued for longer than the Bank of England forecasts.

(James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

(Editing by James Dalgleish)

(At the time of publication, Reuters columnist James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund. For previous columns by James Saft, click on)

View the original article here