By contrast, where is traditional medicine going to? Well, the most "trendy" approach of the moment is called personalized medicine, which is based on the study of cancer genetics. Researchers are trying to identify the genetic hallmarks of pivotal molecular processes which may be blocked by targeted therapies. The aim of personalized medicine is thus to treat patients with specific drug(s), to be chosen on the basis of the genetic profile of the tumor. Once the treatment is selected, the patient is then bombed with intravenous administrations which are toxic for cancer cells but unfortunately also for healthy tissues.
The approach of the nanotechnologists is different in that they plan to build nanoparticles as small as 1/20,000th the size of a red blood cell that can be "painted" with a drug (but also with a protein, an amino acid or an RNA) and directed to repair or kill only the diseased cells, without even touching all the other ones. Nanoparticles would be easily swallowed with a pill and could be "queried" to reach the site of the disease by magnetized wearable devices on the skin of the patient. The nanothecnological approach would be then an "extremely selective" one.
Which is the best? Chemotherapic drugs have been increasingly improving in the last years. However their systemic administration is still proving to be toxic in most cases. The idea of Google is so creatively naïf, so extremely logic (and so potentially harmless) that it is not possible to be a fan of it. Whether or when this idea will radically change the concept of personalized medicine itself in future is still unknown, but it's not difficult to guess how explosive the conjugation of nanotechnology and pharmacology may be. Good job, Google!
Related articles:
