Gene therapy can potentially cure cancer! What is NOT true about this process?   This treatment has been successful in patients with advanced stage IV cancer All cancers will respond to the same gene therapy protocol Gene therapy targets only a certain type of cell, and should leave most healthy cells unaffected Gene therapy inserts genes into immune cells Gene therapy can cure cancer in a short amount of time (days or weeks)

Give detailed Solution with explanation needed....give correct solution. don't use Ai for answering this..

Which of the following is a true statement? BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 mutations decrease risk of breast as well as ovarian cancer 4 If a woman has all of the major risk factors for breast cancer she will inevitably be diagnosed with breast cancer O Mammography is more accurate in postmenopausal women since breasts are not as glandular and dense O Having children at any age is protects a woman from getting breast cancer Previo MacBook Pro Next ▸

Which of the following statements about cancer is false? (a) oncogenes arise from mutations in proto-oncogenes (b) tumor suppressor genes normally interact with growth-inhibiting factors to block cell division (c) more than 120 cancer-driving genes have been discovered (d) oncogenes were first discovered in mouse models for cancer (e) the development of cancer is usually a multistep process involving both oncogenes and mutated tumor suppressor genes

The Adaptive Immune Response Is a Specific Defense Against Infection In cystic fibrosis gene therapy, scientists propose the use of viral vectors to deliver normal genes to cells in the lungs. What immunological risks are involved in this procedure?

are changes to the order of nucleotides in a segment of DNA that codes for a protein. Proto-oncogenes Tumor suppressor genes Gene mutations Negative regulators

The Adaptive Immune Response Is a Specific Defense Against Infection Researchers have been having a difficult time developing a vaccine against a certain pathogenic virus as a result of the lack of a weakened strain. They turn to you because of your wide knowledge of recombinant DNA technology and the immune system. How could you vaccinate someone against the virus, using a cloned gene from the virus that encodes a cell-surface protein?

Benign tumors: a. are noncancerous growths that do not spread to other tissues b. do not contain mutations c. are malignant and clonal in origin d. metastasize to other tissues e. none of these

Who Owns Your Genome? John Moore, an engineer working on the Alaska oil pipeline, was diagnosed in the mid-1970s with a rare and fatal form of cancer known as hairy cell leukemia. This disease causes overproduction of one type of white blood cell known as a T lymphocyte. Moore went to the UCLA Medical Center for treatment and was examined by Dr. David Golde, who recommended that Moores spleen be removed in an attempt to slow down or stop the cancer. For the next 8 years, John Moore returned to UCLA for checkups. Unknown to Moore, Dr. Golde and his research assistant applied for and received a patent on a cell line and products of that cell line derived from Moores spleen. The cell line, named Mo, produced a protein that stimulates the growth of two types of blood cells that are important in identifying and killing cancer cells. Arrangements were made with Genetics Institute, a small start-up company, and then Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, to develop the cell line and produce the growth-stimulating protein. Moore found out about the cell line and its related patents and filed suit to claim ownership of his cells and asked for a share of the profits derived from the sale of the cells or products from the cells. Eventually, the case went through three courts, and in July 1990n years after the case beganthe California Supreme Court ruled that patients such as John Moore do not have property rights over any cells or tissues removed from their bodies that are used later to develop drugs or other commercial products. This case was the first in the nation to establish a legal precedent for the commercial development and use of human tissue. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 prevents the sale of human organs. Current laws allow the sale of human tissues and cells but do not define ownership interests of donors. Questions originally raised in the Moore case remain largely unresolved in laws and public policy. These questions are being raised in many other cases as well. Who owns fetal and adult stem-cell lines established from donors, and who has ownership of and a commercial interest in diagnostic tests developed through cell and tissue donations by affected individuals? Who benefits from new genetic technologies based on molecules, cells, or tissues contributed by patients? Are these financial, medical, and ethical benefits being distributed fairly? What can be done to ensure that risks and benefits are distributed in an equitable manner? Gaps between technology, laws, and public policy developed with the advent of recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s, and in the intervening decades, those gaps have not been closed. These controversies are likely to continue as new developments in technology continue to outpace social consensus about their use. Should the physicians at UCLA have told Mr. Moore that his cells and its products were being commercially developed?

Who Owns Your Genome? John Moore, an engineer working on the Alaska oil pipeline, was diagnosed in the mid-1970s with a rare and fatal form of cancer known as hairy cell leukemia. This disease causes overproduction of one type of white blood cell known as a T lymphocyte. Moore went to the UCLA Medical Center for treatment and was examined by Dr. David Golde, who recommended that Moores spleen be removed in an attempt to slow down or stop the cancer. For the next 8 years, John Moore returned to UCLA for checkups. Unknown to Moore, Dr. Golde and his research assistant applied for and received a patent on a cell line and products of that cell line derived from Moores spleen. The cell line, named Mo, produced a protein that stimulates the growth of two types of blood cells that are important in identifying and killing cancer cells. Arrangements were made with Genetics Institute, a small start-up company, and then Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, to develop the cell line and produce the growth-stimulating protein. Moore found out about the cell line and its related patents and filed suit to claim ownership of his cells and asked for a share of the profits derived from the sale of the cells or products from the cells. Eventually, the case went through three courts, and in July 1990n years after the case beganthe California Supreme Court ruled that patients such as John Moore do not have property rights over any cells or tissues removed from their bodies that are used later to develop drugs or other commercial products. This case was the first in the nation to establish a legal precedent for the commercial development and use of human tissue. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 prevents the sale of human organs. Current laws allow the sale of human tissues and cells but do not define ownership interests of donors. Questions originally raised in the Moore case remain largely unresolved in laws and public policy. These questions are being raised in many other cases as well. Who owns fetal and adult stem-cell lines established from donors, and who has ownership of and a commercial interest in diagnostic tests developed through cell and tissue donations by affected individuals? Who benefits from new genetic technologies based on molecules, cells, or tissues contributed by patients? Are these financial, medical, and ethical benefits being distributed fairly? What can be done to ensure that risks and benefits are distributed in an equitable manner? Gaps between technology, laws, and public policy developed with the advent of recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s, and in the intervening decades, those gaps have not been closed. These controversies are likely to continue as new developments in technology continue to outpace social consensus about their use. Do you think that donors or patients who provide cells and/or tissues should retain ownership of their body parts or should share in any financial benefits that might derive from their use in research or commercial applications?