Comments

Space may be the perfect place to study cancer — and someday even treat it," writes Space.com: On Earth, gravity slows the development of cancer because cells normally need to be attached to a surface in order to function and grow. But in space, cancer cell clusters can expand in all directions as bubbles, like budding yeast or grapes, said Shay Soker, chief science program officer at Wake Forest's Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Since bubbles grow larger and more quickly in space, researchers can more easily test substances clinging to the edge of the larger bubbles, too. Scientists at the University of Notre Dame are taking advantage of this quirk to develop an in-space cancer test that needs just a single drop of blood. The work builds on a series of bubble-formation experiments that have already been conducted on the ISS. "If cancer screening using our bubble technology in space is democratized and made inexpensive, many more cancers can be screened, and everyone can benefit," said Tengfei Luo, a Notre Dame researcher who pioneered the technology, speaking to the ISS' magazine, Upward. "It's something we may be able to integrate into annual exams. It sounds far-fetched, but it's achievable...." Chemotherapy patients could save precious time, too. In normal gravity, they typically have to spend a half-hour hooked up to a needle before the medicine begins to take effect, because most drugs don't dissolve easily in water. But scientists at Merck have discovered that, in space, their widely used cancer drug pembrolizumab, or Keytruda, can be administered through a simple injection, because large crystalline molecules that would normally clump together are suspended in microgravity... Someday, microgravity could even help patients recovering from surgery heal faster than they would on Earth, Soker added. "Wound healing in high pressure is faster. That's the hyperbaric treatment for wounds...." For the Wake Forest experiment, which is scheduled to launch next spring, scientists will cut out two sections of a cancer tumor from around 20 patients. One sample will stay on Earth while the other heads to the ISS, with scientists observing the difference. The testing will be completed within a week, to avoid any interference from cosmic radiation. If successful, Soker said, it could set the stage for diagnostic cancer tests in space available to the general population — perhaps on a biomedical space station that could launch after the planned demise of the ISS. "Can we actually design a special cancer space station that will be dedicated to cancer and maybe other diseases?" Shoker asked, answering his question in the affirmative. "Pharmaceutical companies that have deep pockets would certainly support that program."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Comments

Meta's CTO, Palantir's CTO, and OpenAI's chief product officer are being appointed as lieutenant colonels in America's Army Reserve, reports The Register. (Along with OpenAI's former chief revenue officer). They've all signed up for Detachment 201: Executive Innovation Corps, "an effort to recruit senior tech executives to serve part-time in the Army Reserve as senior advisors," according to the official statement. "In this role they will work on targeted projects to help guide rapid and scalable tech solutions to complex problems..." "Our primary role will be to serve as technical experts advising the Army's modernization efforts," [Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth] said on X... As for Open AI's involvement, the company has been building its ties with the military-technology complex for some years now. Like Meta, OpenAI is working with Anduril on military ideas and last year scandalized some by watering down its past commitment to developing non-military products only. The Army wasn't answering questions on Friday but an article referenced by [OpenAI Chief Product Officer Kevin] Weil indicated that the four will have to serve a minimum of 120 hours a year, can work remotely, and won't have to pass basic training... "America wins when we unite the dynamism of American innovation with the military's vital missions," [Palantir CTO Shyam] Sankar said on X. "This was the key to our triumphs in the 20th century. It can help us win again. I'm humbled by this new opportunity to serve my country, my home, America."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Comments

In 1989 a computer scientist argued that more functionality in software actually lowers usability and practicality — leading to the counterintuitive proposition that "worse is better". But is that still true? Python's original creator Guido van Rossum addressed the question last month in a lightning talk at the annual Python Language Summit 2025. Guido started by recounting earlier periods of Python development from 35 years ago, where he used UNIX "almost exclusively" and thus "Python was greatly influenced by UNIX's 'worse is better' philosophy"... "The fact that [Python] wasn't perfect encouraged many people to start contributing. All of the code was straightforward, there were no thoughts of optimization... These early contributors also now had a stake in the language; [Python] was also their baby"... Guido contrasted early development to how Python is developed now: "features that take years to produce from teams of software developers paid by big tech companies. The static type system requires an academic-level understanding of esoteric type system features." And this isn't just Python the language, "third-party projects like numpy are maintained by folks who are paid full-time to do so.... Now we have a huge community, but very few people, relatively speaking, are contributing meaningfully." Guido asked whether the expectation for Python contributors going forward would be that "you had to write a perfect PEP or create a perfect prototype that can be turned into production-ready code?" Guido pined for the "old days" where feature development could skip performance or feature-completion to get something into the hands of the community to "start kicking the tires". "Do we have to abandon 'worse is better' as a philosophy and try to make everything as perfect as possible?" Guido thought doing so "would be a shame", but that he "wasn't sure how to change it", acknowledging that core developers wouldn't want to create features and then break users with future releases. Guido referenced David Hewitt's PyO3 talk about Rust and Python, and that development "was using worse is better," where there is a core feature set that works, and plenty of work to be done and open questions. "That sounds a lot more fun than working on core CPython", Guido paused, "...not that I'd ever personally learn Rust. Maybe I should give it a try after," which garnered laughter from core developers. "Maybe we should do more of that: allowing contributors in the community to have a stake and care".

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments