In 1960 President John F. Kennedy in one of his most stirring and memorable speeches presented Americans with a goal of unprecedented proportions...a challenge so daunting, so overwhelming that it generated skepticism in the minds of even his most ardent supporters.  In that address, the President stated unhesitatingly that our nation would send Americans to the moon and return them safely to earth before the end of the decade.

 Through the sheer determination and dedication of scientists and engineers and the support of the American taxpayer, that goal was reached. In 1969, our country accomplished what no other human being had ever done. We left our home planet and set foot on another world.  What had seemed in 1960 an impossibility had become reality.

 To many people, going to the moon represented the epitome of technological accomplishment.  After all, many believed, "if we could do that, we could do just about anything."

 Sadly, though, as the years have passed, we learned that this  euphoric can-do-anything attitude had limits. For some reason we were able to meet the challenge of putting a man on the moon in the 60's, but were not able to apply that same courage and determination to solving some of mankind's most serious problems and challenges in the 90's. Perhaps no where is this been more evident than in the area of medical research, particularly cancer. Here our disappointed is profound.  We have to ask...could finding a cure for cancer be more difficult, or less important than going to the moon?  Surely not. We found a way to safely leave the earth and return in less than a decade. Yet after 70-80 years of research, there is still no cancer cure in site. To be sure, patients' lives in some cases have been prolonged...and some have been saved, but the specter of cancer looms ominously for all of us...just as it did 100 years ago.
 
 How is it we could go to the moon but can't cure cancer? We submit that motivation is the answer.  In the race to the moon, the driving force was the attainment of a specific goal. But in cancer research, the goal is money, and its continuous flow...pure and simple. Cancer research and cancer treatment is a multi-billion dollar a year business. Scientists, technicians, doctors, drug companies and hospitals all depend on this never-ending battle with cancer for their continued existence.

 It's a sobering indictment, but it's time we had the courage to face the possibility and ask the question: Are those involved in cancer research and treatment deliberately delaying the discovery of a cancer cure in order to keep the money flowing? How much is a dying cancer patient worth to the attending physician, the hospital, the drug companies...a quarter million each...more?

 Do the billions of dollars blind researchers to common sense approaches? For example, cancer cells are in many respects distinctly different from healthy ones. They grow rapidly and many in cases sent forth new blood vessels which choke the life out of nearby healthy cells. Such unique differences make malignant cells especially vulnerable to attack by specific pharmacologic agents. It would seem a simple matter to develop a protocol by which these vulnerable differences might be exploited.

 Does the prospect of large profits, prevent researchers from using another logical strategy?  For instance, why haven't they tested alternative medicines on the terminally ill? There is much to be learned and virtually nothing to lose by administering substances such as shark cartilage and exotic teas to people who are going to die anyway. It is even possible they might themselves be helped. Of course, the treatment should never inflict the least amount of additional pain or suffering.
 
 The cancer research community needs a few original thinkers. Where are the Jonas Salks, the Louis Pastuers? Are there no more heros in our midst?  Where are those who would refuse to view the cancer plight as their own personal goose laying for them golden eggs ad infinitum? Where are the people whose first priority is finding a cure for cancer? Wonder if any of the old NASA team members would be interested?

 SO MUCH KNOWLEDGE...SO LITTLE PROGRESS, WHY?

 Since the microscope was invented over three-hundred years ago, much has been learned about the cell, the building blocks that make up all living things. We humans are made up of several trillion of them, and under magnification, they reveal a remarkable diversity. The appearance of each cell type varies considerably according to its function.  Typically, however, the "average" cell is a rectangular or square-shaped structure,  containing a number of small and irregularly-shaped objects, the organelles. These tiny objects float in a semi-liquid interior, the cytoplasm, which is itself about 70% water.  This gel is bounded and held in place by a very thin plasma membrane. It's a double-layered structure, composed of what chemists call phospholipids.  The two layers are arranged so that the water-soluble side of one of the layers faces toward the interior of the cell, while the water soluble side of the other layer faces toward the watery environment of the outside.  Not only does the plasma or cell membrane, the skin of the cell, give the cell its shape, it also functions as the gatekeeper, allowing only specific kinds of molecules to enter and leave the cell. The types of molecules allowed in and out by the membrane is highly relevant to cancer research. Several questions come to mind with regard to the cell membrane's role. Is it possible that certain molecules, after gaining access to the cell's interior by passing through the membrane, might combine with other substances already present? If that does occur, isn't it likely that the combining of two or more materials would produce a molecule too large to pass back through the membrane to the outside. And finally, if that were true, wouldn't such a large molecule over time accumulate to perhaps dangerously high concentrations?

 One organelle in any cell almost always stands out.  It's the nucleus, a spherical body located near the cell's center. Early investigators suspected that because of its prominence and strategic location, it might serve as the cell's command center.  And indeed they were right, for contained within this mass is the material which holds the key to cell functioning and reproduction.

 This material is DNA and all cells from amoeba to humans have it. The DNA holds the code of life.  This code is written in a language that uses an alphabet that has only 4 letters. The letters are grouped into words that are never more than three letters long, but even so the message can tell the cell how to make a certain protein or tissue. The instructions say how, where and when to construct all the varied types of tissues and enzymes that a normal functioning individual will need. Even in the very beginning stages of life, this code instructs the single cell as to what futures cells should become as they repeatedly divide. New cells are transformed into muscle, bone, brain skin, blood, connective tissues. etc.  We call that process differentiation, and scientists still don't understand how it's accomplished.

 Each time a cell divides the DNA in the nucleus must make a copy of itself. This assures that, after cell division, each cell will have the same amount of DNA it started with. As we grow from infancy to adulthood our cells continue dividing at a rapid rate. After reaching maturity, though, cellular reproduction slows down, and new cells are produced only on order to heal wounds and replace cells that have died. Just how cells know when to stop dividing is something of a mystery.

 The key to finding a cure for cancer in part at least would appear to lie in understanding how normal healthy cells function... and how they differ structurally and functionally from cancerous ones; then, in using that knowledge to develop a strategy to target and destroy the "deviant", malignant cells.

 There are at least two significant differences between normal and cancerous cells. First, cancerous cells are undifferentiated.  That is, they are not specialized to carry out specific physiologic functions as are normal cells.  In liver cancer for example, cells of within that organ divide at a phenomenal rate. But these new cells are not liver cells at all, and thus don't perform the function consistent with normal cells of this organ. Instead these undifferentiated, rogue cells do little more than crowd out and destroy normal- functioning liver cells. Eventually, the individual has no more liver cells to do the work of this organ and the person dies. Because cancer cells are so dramatically different from healthy cells...both in gross and microscopic appearance...one would think that singling them out for annihilation shouldn't be all that difficult. Their vulnerability must lie in their deviant character. Let's aim research efforts at taking advantage of their atypical and unusual nature.
 
 The second difference between cancerous and normal cells is that the latter divide uncontrollably.  They proliferate at a phenomenal rate and often migrate or metastasize from their point of origin to any region of the body.

  Why does this occur? Scientist know that in normal cells, so-called regulator genes turn on cell division at certain periods during the reproductive cycle. It would seem logical that in cancer cells this gene gets turned "on" and remains locked in the "on" position indefinitely.  If these regulator genes for cancer can be identified, scientists might be able to discover how to turn them "off". Perhaps that knowledge would lead to our ability to halt the uncontrolled division of cancer cells.  Once again...let's concentrate on turning the uniqueness of cancer cells to our advantage.
 
 The combination of those two traits...uncontrolled, rapid cell division and an undifferentiated cell-type produces a ferocious killer-disease.

 There are other differences, as well.  Cancer stimulates the formation of new blood vessels leading to the site of the tumor. This insures the new cells that they will have an ample supply of nutrients and raw materials for cell growth and division. Thus, it would seem that here lies another possible line of attack. Uncover the mechanism which causes growth of the new blood vessels and employ a mechanism to impede or stop it altogether.

 These are but three examples demonstrating how cancer cells differ from healthy ones. Let's use these and other distinguishing features to construct an offensive strategy. It would seem that with the vast amount of knowledge related to cell physiology, both abnormal and normal, at our disposal...with the billions of dollars available for research, and the with unparalleled expertise of our scientists, we should be able to progress to the point of finding a cure for this most onerous scourge of mankind.
 
 To return to Nellie Carroll Memorial Research Foundation