A vaccine for pancreatic cancer could serve as a promising new therapy.

At Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) in New York, an experimental approach to treating the cancer with a messenger RNA (mRNA)-based therapeutic vaccine “continues to show potential” in reducing the risk of the disease returning after surgery, according to a press release.

Results from the phase 1 clinical trial, published in the journal Nature, revealed that the vaccine triggered an immune response in a small patient group.

This immune-cell activation persisted for nearly four years after treatment, the release stated.

Patients who received the vaccine and showed an immune system response were more likely to remain cancer-free by their three-year follow-up.

Vinod Balachandran, MD, principal investigator of the trial and senior study author at MSK, stated his optimism about the efficacy of this treatment.

“We find that with RNA vaccine technology, we can teach the immune system to recognize pancreatic cancer, and this immune response could potentially last for many years,” he said.

“The ability to trigger a robust, long-lasting immune response is a requisite feature for any cancer vaccine.”

As pancreatic cancer is “difficult to treat,” Balachandran shared his surprise that the immune system responded in some patients.

“We are encouraged to see that our approach can teach the immune system to recognize pancreatic cancer, that the immune response is potent and that it may potentially impact patients,” he said.

“The ability to trigger a robust, long-lasting immune response is a requisite feature for any cancer vaccine.”

“Although the findings are promising, these vaccines are still in the early stages of testing,” Balachandran said.

The team is planning a larger study “to further test these therapeutic cancer vaccines in patients with surgically removable pancreatic cancer.”

Of the 16 participants, the vaccine stimulated an immune response in half of them. The cancer vaccine was personalized for each participant to target specific proteins found in their form of the disease.

The patients also received an immunotherapy drug (atezolizumab) and standard-of-care chemotherapy after receiving surgery.

Therapeutic cancer vaccines like this one, referred to as autogene cevumeran, are meant to treat the cancer instead of preventing it, by training the immune system to “recognize cancer cells as foreign,” according to the researchers.

The vaccine is meant to target early stages of cancer that have not spread, where tumors can be surgically removed, to “help delay or prevent recurrence.”

Balachandran noted that this approach could potentially be applied to other forms of cancer as well.

“If you can do this in pancreatic cancer, theoretically you may be able to develop therapeutic vaccines for other cancer types.”

“For patients with pancreatic cancer, our latest results continue to support the approach of using personalized mRNA vaccines to target neoantigens in each patient’s tumor,” he said.

“If you can do this in pancreatic cancer, theoretically you may be able to develop therapeutic vaccines for other cancer types.”

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the deadliest cancers, as only about 13% of patients are alive five years following diagnosis, according to MSK and the American Cancer Society.

Common therapies like chemotherapy, radiation and immunotherapies are “largely ineffective” against pancreatic cancer, MSK stated, which makes new therapies “urgently needed.”

A recent study examines the effectiveness of environmental strains for the production of biocement. The study’s lead author, Dimitrios Terzis, is an EPFL senior scientist and a co-founder of Medusoil, a company that produces organic binders and that opened a production plant in Vaud in 2024.

“For me, it’s essential to keep conducting fundamental research,” says Terzis, a civil engineer at EPFL’s Soil Mechanics Laboratory. His company Medusoil produces organic binders that are similar to biocement.

For the study published recently in Scientific Reports, Terzis worked with scientists from the University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland to analyze 50 bacteria strains sourced from farmland in Ticino canton. This land is used for grazing dairy cattle and has shown to be particularly well suited for the production of Medusoil’s biocement due to the widely available presence of calcium.

Biocementation relies on stimulating a natural process: The secretion by microorganisms of an enzyme that triggers the formation of carbonate, which then binds with the calcium largely present in the soil to form calcite, a natural cement.

The study identified which naturally occurring strains fabricate the enzyme required for carbonate formation and can be fermented—two factors that make them prime candidates for biocement production. The scientists created a culture of the most promising strain, which was inoculated in a 1.5-meter-high column of sand.

After 24 hours of infiltration, the column was strong enough to sustain its weight and to be used in a variety of geotechnical engineering and geoenvironmental applications, like erosion. The scientists also found that using this strain could cut production costs by 40%.

A paradigm shift

Medusoil, founded seven years ago, supplies organic binders whose carbon impact is at least 55% lower than that of standard cement, which is made by heating an 80% limestone/20% clay mixture to high temperatures. Biocement can be used in a number of geotechnical and building applications, such as to reinforce dams, prevent soil erosion by wind and help protect areas subject to landslides, earthquakes or cyclic loads induced by road and railway traffic.

To test yet another application, the company’s biocement was used in a project in Geneva to recover concrete aggregates from demolished buildings. And because biocement can be employed several times, it supports the circular economy.

In the Scientific Reports study, the authors note that this naturally occurring biocementation process can be applied on a large scale and can help drive a paradigm shift towards greater sustainability in the construction industry.

New production plant

Medusoil reached a new milestone in 2024 with the opening of a production plant in Molondin, near Yverdon-les-Bains. “The plant can generate 400,000 liters of biocement per year, which is enough to stabilize five kilometers of riverbank against erosion,” says Vincent Laurençon, Medusoil’s head of manufacturing.

The company also has a mobile biocementation plant designed to make use of local raw materials. It was recently transported by truck to Romania, for example, where it was employed to reinforce roads. The firm intends to pursue its cutting-edge R&D and has projects lined up this year in France, the Middle East and the Netherlands.

A doctor on the frontlines of America’s colon cancer crisis in young people has revealed the breakfast scientifically proven to stave off the disease.

Dr Suneel Kamath, an oncologist specializing in early-onset colorectal cancers at the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic, told DailyMail.com that mounting research shows how calcium and fiber can protect against the deadly disease.

With this in mind, the colon cancer expert says breakfast is the perfect meal to pack these ingredients into, as there are lots of food options to play with.

A recent study from Harvard University found that people who eat at least two servings of yogurt a week could lower their risk of colon cancers caused by bacteria by 20 per cent.

It followed a study funded by Cancer Research UK in January that found drinking a large glass of milk could be linked to a 17 per cent decrease in the risk of colon cancer.

Meanwhile, many colon cancer experts say that fiber is key in preventing the disease as it feeds ‘good’ bacteria in the gut that shield the colon lining.

Dr Kamath’s first breakfast suggestion is overnight oats with milk, with berries for an extra boost of vitamin C and antioxidants.

The other ingredients comprise non-fat Greek yogurt, honey, and either homemade or store-bought granola.

An 8oz serving provides almost 20 percent (4g) of the recommended daily amount of fiber and 13 percent of your calcium intake.

He says oats, which are wholegrain, are an excellent source of fiber, and which like calcium, has been shown to safeguard against colon cancer.

The oats contain lots of fiber and keep you full, which has the added effect of clearing out the colon and feeding the ‘good’ bacteria.

Fiber is broken down by the body’s gut microbiota – the ecosystem of bacteria, fungi and viruses – through a process called fermentation, which produces beneficial microbes that help protect against colon cancer.

One study suggests that eating three servings (90 grams) of whole grains daily reduces the risk of colorectal cancer by 17 percent.

If you prefer to consume your breakfast on the go, Dr Kamath suggests blending a smoothie with oats, yoghurt and milk.

If neither of the previous options tickle your fancy, his third suggestion is a yoghurt parfait.

When it comes to dairy, a recent study found that an additional 300mg of calcium a day – about the amount in a large glass of milk – could be linked to a 17 per cent decrease in the risk of colon cancer.

Scientists analyzed dietary data from more than 542,000 women to investigate the link between 97 products and nutrients and the chances of someone developing the cancer.

The findings showed that food and drink rich in calcium such as milk and yoghurt were linked to a lower risk of a diagnosis over 16 years.

Calcium was found to have a similar effect from both dairy and non-dairy sources, suggesting it was the main factor responsible for cutting risk.

Along with being packed with calcium thanks to the addition of yogurt and milk, a serving of overnight oats provides up to 20 percent of the recommended daily fiber intake.

Commenting on the importance of carefully selecting your breakfast ingredients, Dr Kamath says: ‘Seems like dairy is beneficial in preventing colorectal cancer, which is an easy thing culturally to add to our diets, especially for breakfast.

‘It seems to mainly driven by calcium intake, so probably adding other foods with calcium would also be beneficial.’

The US has the sixth highest rate of early-onset cancers, with 87 cases per 100,000 people under 50, and colon cancer is among the fastest rising.

Researchers from the University of Missouri-Kansas City recently looked at rates of colorectal cancer in people 10 to 44 years old over the last two decades and found cases had risen in all age groups.

The rate of colorectal cancers grew 500 percent among children ages 10 to 14 and 333 percent among teenagers aged 15 to 19 years.

Rates rose by 71 percent among people 30 to 34 to seven cases per 100,000 people. Among people 35 to 39, rates rose by 58 percent to 12 cases per 100,000 people.

Many young patients have their symptoms dismissed for more benign gastrointestinal conditions, leading to a more aggressive disease.

Newborns with heart complications can rely on their newly developed immune systems to regenerate cardiac tissues, but this isn’t the case in adults. After a heart attack, most adults struggle to regenerate healthy heart tissue, leading to scar tissue buildup and, often, heart failure.

A study in mice by Northwestern Medicine researchers has now identified a critical difference in how immune system macrophages help repair the heart in newborns versus adults after a heart attack. They found that in newborns, macrophages perform a process called efferocytosis, which recognizes and eats dying cells. This process triggers the production of a bioactive lipid called thromboxane, signaling nearby heart muscle cells to divide, and allowing the heart to regenerate damaged heart muscle. In contrast, efferocytosis by adult macrophages ultimately culminates in fibrotic scarring.

The study highlights a fundamental difference in how the immune system drives healing based on age and could point to strategies for improving tissue repair after heart attack in adults.

“Understanding why newborns can regenerate their hearts while adults cannot will open the door to developing treatments that could ‘reprogram’ adult macrophages,” said first and co-corresponding author Connor Lantz, PhD, lead scientist of the bioinformatics core at the Comprehensive Transplant Center at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

“Tissue regeneration is a tightly coordinated process that involves multiple cell types, including cells of the innate immune system,” the researchers further wrote. For their reported study the team examined how the immune system responds to heart injury in mice of different ages, including newborn mice (one day old) and adult mice (eight weeks old).

They found that engulfment of dying cells by newborn macrophages triggered a chemical chain reaction that produced a molecule called thromboxane A2, which unexpectedly stimulated heart muscle cells to multiply and repair the damage. Additionally, the results indicated that nearby muscle heart cells in newborns are primed to respond to thromboxane A2, leading them to change their metabolism to support their growth and healing. This process did not work the same way in adults, however. In contrast, in adults, after an injury, macrophages did not produce enough thromboxane A2, limiting their ability to regenerate heart tissue. “By mimicking the effects of thromboxane, we might one day improve tissue repair after a heart attack in adults,” Lantz said.

“Collectively, our findings … uncover a dichotomy whereby neonatal macrophages recognize injured cells to initiate intercellular signaling and promote tissue regeneration,” the scientists stated. “By contrast, efferocytosis by adult macrophages culminates in persisting fibrotic scarring.”

The researchers found the ability of macrophages to engulf dying cells was enhanced in newborn mice due to increased expression of MerTK, a receptor that recognizes dying cells. When the scientists blocked this key receptor, newborn mice lost their ability to regenerate their hearts, resembling adult hearts after a heart attack. “By genetically inhibiting efferocytosis signaling through genetic ablation of Mertk, the regenerative response in the neonatal heart is altered to resemble that of adult hearts, both in terms of macrophage phenotype and impaired cardiac function,” they further noted.

“Altogether, our findings uncover an age-defined mechanism by which tissue injury reprograms macrophage metabolism to fuel regeneration … Our findings integrate what appears to be a formative immunometabolism signature with recognition of dying cells as well as production of cell mitogens.”

Artificial intelligence (AI) is known for enabling deeper insights into drug development, identifying patterns and molecules that may otherwise go unnoticed. Now it is poised to make similar contributions to gene editing. A few companies are using AI to develop gene editing tools that are more specific and more efficacious.

CRISPR systems such as CRISPR-Cas9 revolutionized gene editing, but genomic rearrangements are becoming a real concern for in vivo therapies, and nonspecific editing has been a longstanding issue that affects subsequent generations of cells. Zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) also have challenges, thus underscoring the need for improvements.

Using rational design to find new gene editors, however, hasn’t yielded anything notably different from CRISPR-Cas9, says Chelsea Trengrove, PhD, CEO of Neoclease, and a platform approach to their development tends to limit efficacy and specificity.

AI technology is emerging as a possible solution to enhance the precision of multiple types of gene editors. And the addition of generative AI lets scientists look beyond what exists in nature.

GenAI-created editors

Neoclease’s custom AI model develops gene-specific editors in silico. Eventually, top candidates may direct gene editing for humans in vivo, using the CRISPR nucleases, ZFNs, TALENs, and other gene editing nucleases.

“We’re using a generative AI model,” Trengrove says. “This is a large language model that’s trained on millions of known proteins that cut DNA.” The idea, she adds, isn’t to create a workhorse enzyme that can do everything, but to optimize every editor for a specific gene of interest.

Trengrove explains that generative AI enables Neoclease to create a knowledge network of variables to understand how editors can be optimized, and to make a virtue of hallucination such that truly novel sequences can be generated. The goal, she stresses, is to generate additional editors that are “optimized and weighted in the direction we want to push them toward.”

“It’s almost like ChatGPT for proteins,” Trengrove remarks. “While some associate hallucinations with errors, we leverage them… as an innovation tool to generate novel and effective protein designs.”

Generating potential gene editors is just the first step. After tens of thousands of novel sequences have been generated that can be optimized toward specific features—certain binding energies, degrees of polarity, or domains, for example—the features are fed through a series of computational checkpoints. Those checkpoints identify which editors are best suited to advance into in vitro validation based upon their features and functionality. Of the tens of thousands of nucleases the company has created in silico, it has, to date, advanced about 7,000.

Trofim Lysenko, the mid-20th century anti-Mendel scientist and Stalin favorite, is poised for a comeback. Millions of Soviet citizens died as a result of his government-backed pseudoscientific biological ideas. Even though he was eventually dismissed in shame, Russian science tanked for several generations, struggling to catch up with the rest of the world to the present day.

How did so many people, including so many scientists, become so willing to abandon the scientific method and support Lysenko, helping pave the way for catastrophe after catastrophe? Clearly many were scared into accepting his ideas, aligned as they were with Soviet philosophy and policies (and the government’s ruthless enforcement of them). But that still doesn’t fully account for his rapid rise and—coming way too late for many—his dramatic fall.

My recent interest is more than just historical curiosity. When one looks at the incoming administration’s nominees for Health and Human Services, NIH, FDA, NASA, CDC, etc., one could be forgiven for fearing that ideology is again ascendant over scientific reality: The very dynamic that led to Lysenkoism less than a century ago. These possible “science” leaders are indeed a threat, particularly if they get a high level of popular support for “theories” they have publicly announced that defy years of scientific discovery. What is going on in the American public?

What is wrong with us?

It is too easy to place the blame on a poor education system for the deep suspicion of science and scientists in many parts of our country. But asking “what is wrong with them?” should be secondary to the far more important question of “what is wrong with us?” Scientists and their supporters may be about to reap a whirlwind that we have at least partially sown.

It is a tragedy that so many people I talk with have experienced science in their school education as only a set of facts to be memorized and spit back out at test time. I think we can all agree that is not good science, or even science at all. No, the best science is built on the twin pillars of scientific method and scientific language, both of which have tremendous power to enlighten reality and unite or—sadly—to obscure and fragment.

What we say and do matters

Scientific method at its best is an intellectual openness to considering, debating, and testing new findings that enhance or even contradict current understandings. That philosophy is obviously inimical to more dogmatic belief systems, whose proponents simply dismiss scientists and scientific discoveries (e.g., vaccines) as incompatible with deeply held “truths.” The growing out-of-hand dismissal of science at least partially reflects a failure by us scientists to impart in both our communications and our actions just how freeing and even existentially satisfying the scientific method is.

The other pillar, scientific language, evolved out of necessity for scientists to communicate new concepts and discoveries accurately with each other as succinctly as possible. But for the non-scientist (or even the scientist in a different field of expertise), scientific language might as well be Sumerian when used outside the relevant laboratory. Modern day scientists tend to be particularly guilty of relying on professional language even in settings in which they may be the only one fluent, basically rendering concepts and ideas inaccessible to others, and thus more easily dismissed as “just another belief system.”

As a result of our unintentional obscuring of science, all manner of crazy ideas and charlatans can gain political and social ascendancy thanks to the relative accessibility of their mendacious language that offers “insider” knowledge and comfort. Lysenko’s twisting of method and language gave him (initially) great power over the Soviet population and even over many scientists. Those few scientists and science-supporters who opposed him did so initially only from inside the scientific ivory tower, and they were quickly and easily silenced. Others simply fled or hid, hoping he wouldn’t last long, which ended up only prolonging his tenure.

All of us must step up

Are we on the verge of a new American version of Lysenkoism? Maybe not, but there is no question we are facing at the very least a rough few years ahead for science. The temptation is strong to lay low until this madness is over. But that is what most scientists did in the face of Lysenkoism, to their own detriment. If we truly believe science is a critical element of a healthy and just society, scientists and their supporters cannot hide now.

The December 9th letter to the U.S. Senate from 75+ Nobel Laureates requesting that the senators turn down the nomination Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to head the Department of Health and Human Services was a first step in the right direction. But all of us must push back, individually and collectively, on the emerging anti-scientific forces. Each of us needs to engage a much wider audience—using more accessible language—than our usual comfortable setting. In short, we must model a fearless commitment to good science and undertake a clear unmasking of bad science, no matter the political winds.

An alternate version of this article first appeared on December 11, 2024, in the Boulder Daily Camera under the title “This is no time for scientists and science-supporters to hide.”

Popular drugs for diabetes and weight loss could have an unexpected side effect.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, which are used to treat type 2 diabetes and/or obesity, were linked to vision problems in a small study at the University of British Columbia.

Some common GLP-1 drugs include Ozempic and Wegovy, which contain semaglutide as the active ingredient, and Mounjaro and Zepbound, which contain tirzepatide.

In the study, nine patients who were using a GLP-1 developed “ophthalmic complications,” according to the researchers. The average age of the patients was 57.4 years, according to the study findings.

Seven of the patients had nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), which causes vision loss in one eye.

One patient developed bilateral papillitis, which involves swollen optic nerves that can cause impaired vision, and another had paracentral acute middle maculopathy, which leads to a blind spot in the retina.

All the patients had a history of type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia (high lipids or fats in the blood), hypertension and/or sleep apnea.

The findings were published in JAMA Ophthalmology.

“In one of the cases presented, the patient was taking the drugs for weight loss and did not have a prior history of diabetes (which can also be linked to the condition),” Mahyar Etminan, associate professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, told Fox News Digital. (Etminan was author of the commentary on the study.)

“In another case, when the drug was stopped and reintroduced, the condition reappeared, strengthening a causal link.”

Ziyad Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, was not involved in the study but shared his comments on the findings.

“This is a very small study and it was uncontrolled — meaning it did not include people who were not using GLP-1 drugs,” he told Fox News Digital.

“The story of GLP-1 is still being written — and we are learning something new about these drugs every day.”

“This makes it impossible to know whether the reported eye problems are caused by these drugs.”

Nevertheless, the doctor noted, “the story of GLP-1 is still being written — and we are learning something new about these drugs every day. The findings in this study should be pursued further.”

Etminan also acknowledged the study’s limitations.

“This data was derived from a series of individual cases and was not an epidemiologic study,” he noted. “However, another recent epidemiologic study also confirmed an increase in risk.”

Al-Aly called for large, controlled studies — including people who take the drug and a control group of people who are not using the drug — to evaluate the long-term health effects of these medications, including eye problems.

“In the meantime, for people who may be at risk of vision problems, or who already have vision problems, caution is advised,” he added. “People should discuss with their doctors to determine if GLP-1 is the right medication for them.”

Etminan echoed that cautionary guidance.

“Those taking these drugs for diabetes should probably continue taking them for their cardiovascular benefits, but be aware of the signs of NAION,” he advised.

“Healthy individuals taking them to lose a few pounds for an event might want to more carefully weigh the risks versus the benefits of taking these drugs.”

“Most of the vision side effects appear to resolve when the medication is stopped.”

Dr. Seth Kipnis, medical director of bariatric and robotic surgery at Hackensack Meridian Jersey Shore University Medical Center, noted that there have been “rare and unusual side effects” from this class of medications, but he believes the vision changes seem to be more related to the rapid blood sugar changes caused by the medications than to the medications themselves.

“We have encouraged any patients who are on these types of medications to report any unusual symptoms to their prescribing doctors,” Kipnis, who also was not involved in the research, told Fox News Digital.

“Most of the vision side effects appear to resolve when the medication is stopped.”

Kipnis emphasized that these drugs should only be taken under the care of a healthcare professional and that “good and consistent follow-up for dose adjustments with monitoring for side effects” is critical.

When contacted by Fox News Digital, Novo Nordisk (maker of Ozempic and Wegovy) provided the following statement.

“NAION is a very rare eye disease, and it is not an adverse drug reaction for the marketed formulations of semaglutide (Ozempic®, Rybelsus®and Wegovy®) as per the approved labels. After a thorough evaluation of studies from the University of Southern Denmark and Novo Nordisk’s internal safety assessment, Novo Nordisk is of the opinion that the benefit-risk profile of semaglutide remains unchanged.”

The company also noted that eye conditions are “well-known comorbidities” for people living with diabetes.

“Any decision to start treatment with prescription-only medicines should be made in consultation with a healthcare professional who should do a benefit-risk evaluation for the patient in question, weighing up the benefits of treatment with the potential risks,” Novo Nordisk added.

Yogurt is not only just part of a delicious breakfast.

A new study led by Mass General Brigham researchers found it may also have protective benefits against a certain type of aggressive colon cancer.

Study authors analyzed data totaling over 150,000 people who answered questionnaires about lifestyle factors and disease outcomes, including questions about their intake of plain and flavored yogurt, as well as other dairy products.

These participants were followed for at least three decades.

Researchers found people who ate two or more servings of yogurt a week had lower rates of proximal colon cancer that were positive for Bifidobacterium, according to the study published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Gut Microbes.

Proximal colon cancer is a type of colorectal cancer that occurs on the right side of the colon and has been shown to have worse survival outcomes compared to patients with distal cancers, which occur more on the left side.

“It has long been believed that yogurt and other fermented milk products are beneficial for gastrointestinal health,” said co-senior author Dr. Tomotaka Ugai, a pathology investigator at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “Our new findings suggest that this protective effect may be specific for Bifidobacterium-positive tumors.”

Colorectal cancer is the third-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in men and the fourth-leading cause in women, according to the American Cancer Society.

The organization estimates nearly 53,000 people will die from it in 2025.

While the death rates from colorectal cancer have been dropping in older adults, rates have been increasing by about 1% per year since the mid-2000s in people under 55.

The new yogurt study adds to a growing body of evidence that shows the connection between diet, the gut microbiome and the risk of colorectal cancer, said co-author Dr. Andrew T. Chan, chief of clinical and translational epidemiology at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“It provides an additional avenue for us to investigate the specific role of these factors in the risk of colorectal cancer among young people,” he said.