我們的基因演化是為了抵禦古老的威脅，但在現代社會，其中一些變化可能對我們不利

 Recently The New York Times reported the following:

Where Do Autoimmune Diseases Come From? (2/2)

Our genes evolved to fight ancient threats, but in the modern world, some of those changes may be turning against us.

By David Quammen (David Quammen is a science journalist and author of 19 books. This piece is part of “Disease States,” his new series on evolution and disease.)

Published Oct. 20, 2026, Updated Oct. 22, 2026

(continue)

Today, according to the researchers, those same gene variants seem to be having an opposite effect. With infectious diseases better controlled and the prevalence of M.S. on the rise, “we again observe a striking correlation with changes in our environment, including lifestyle choices and improved hygiene, which no longer favours the previous genetic architecture,” they wrote. In other words, genes that once protected us may now put us at risk.

Another study from an international team of researchers looked at a more recent historical moment of abrupt demographic change: the Black Death. This 14th-century pandemic of plague (caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, which is carried by fleas, which are carried by rats) swept through Europe, the Middle East and northern Africa between 1346 and 1353, killing as much as 30 to 50 percent of the population in those areas.

The researchers scrutinized DNA sequences from the dead in England and Denmark, some buried just before the plague years, some during and some after. One of their sources was East Smithfield, a Black Death mass burial site just east of the Tower of London. There and elsewhere, the researchers found four immunity-related gene variants in the genomes of more people buried after the plague than before or during it, suggesting that those variants had conferred a survival advantage. After a dispute of their mathematical methods by another team, the researchers refocused their assertion on one variant. That variant, evidently adaptive against plague, is now a known risk factor for Crohn’s disease. So it seems that the Black Death, like the transition to pastoralism during the Bronze Age, may have been a selective event that increased the jeopardy of future generations to autoimmune diseases.

Although the Oxford team, in its study of M.S., called this situation a case of outdated “genetic architecture,” there’s another metaphor that makes the same point more vividly. Recall the adage about the failings of military leadership: that generals spend their peacetime preparing to fight the last war, rather than the next one. They cling to obsolete tactics and strategies and weaponry — things that worked well in the past — despite the march of time and the arrival of novelties. This is apparently what evolution has done with the gene variants that many of us carry today. Autoimmune diseases in the 21st century may represent the human immune system’s efforts to fight a war that was once cataclysmic and is now less so against ubiquitous and incurable infectious diseases.

For some people, the miseries of M.S. or lupus or other autoimmune maladies is a cruel misfortune. Others are luckier. For instance, me: I have only my psoriasis (inherited from my father, who inherited it from a lineage of Norwegian country people) as a reminder that my own immune system is ready and eager, too eager, to fight the last war — the war between a Bronze Age herdsman and a virus he picked up from one of his goats.

Translation

自體免疫疾病從何而來？ （2/2）

我們的基因演化是為了抵禦古老的威脅，但在現代社會，其中一些變化可能對我們不利

（繼續）

如今，研究人員表示，同樣的基因變異似乎產生了相反的影響。隨著傳染病得到更好的控制，多發性硬化症（MS）的盛行率不斷上升，他們寫道:「我們再次觀察到，這些疾病與環境變化之間存在顯著的相關性，包括生活方式的選擇和衛生條件的改善，而這些變化不再有利於先前的基因結構」。換句話說，曾經保護我們的基因現在可能使我們面臨風險。

另一項由國際研究團隊進行的研究則著重於近期歷史上人口急劇變化的時期：黑死病。 14世紀的鼠疫大流行（由鼠疫耶爾森菌引起，菌由跳蚤攜帶，跳蚤又被老鼠攜帶）在1346年至1353年間席捲歐洲、中東和北非，導致這些地區30%至50%的人口死亡。

研究人員仔細分析了英格蘭和丹麥死者的DNA序列，其中一些死者埋葬於鼠疫爆發前，一些埋葬於鼠疫期間，還有一些埋葬於鼠疫之後。他們的樣本來源之一是East Smithfield，這是位於倫敦塔東側的黑死病萬人坑。研究人員在那裡以及其他地方發現，在鼠疫之後埋葬的人的基因組中，有四種與免疫相關的基因變異，而鼠疫之前或期間埋葬的人的基因組中則沒有這種變異，這表明這些變異賦予了他們生存優勢。在另一研究團隊對他們的數學方法提出質疑後，研究人員將研究重點重新放在其中一種變異上。這種變異顯然具有抵抗鼠疫的適應性，如今已被證實是克隆氏症的已知風險因素之一。因此，黑死病似乎就像青銅時代向畜牧業的過渡一樣，可能是一種選擇性事件，增加了後代罹患自體免疫疾病的風險。

儘管牛津大學的研究團隊在對多發性硬化症 (MS)的研究中將這種情況稱為過時的“基因結構”，但還有另一個比喻能更生動地表達同樣的觀點。想想那句關於軍事領導失敗的諺語：將軍們在和平時期為最後一場戰爭做準備，而不是之後的戰爭。他們固守過時的戰術、戰略和武器 - 那些過去行之有效的方法 - 儘管時代在變遷，新事物層出不窮。這顯然就是進化對我們許多人今天攜帶的基因變異所做的。 21世紀的自體免疫疾病可能代表人類免疫系統試圖對抗一場曾經災難性的戰爭，一場曾經是災難性的戰爭，如今對抗的是無所不在且無法治癒的傳染病，這場戰爭的災難性後果已經減輕。

對某些人來說，多發性硬化症、紅斑性狼瘡或其他自體免疫疾病所帶來的痛苦是一種殘酷的不幸。有些人則幸運得多。例如我：我只有銀屑病（遺傳自我父親，而他又是從挪威鄉村家族遺傳的），它提醒自己的免疫系統隨時準備著，甚至過於渴望地去打那場戰爭- 一場青銅時代牧羊人與他從山羊身上感染的病毒之間的戰爭。

              So, evolution doesn’t have purposes, only results. Darwinian natural selection doesn’t shape creatures to be “better” or “higher” in some objective, transcendent sense — it shapes creatures to succeed in the here and now. And what works in one environment or period of time may prove harmful in another. More specifically, scientists have found evidence of natural selection for certain gene variants during the Bronze Age. Those same variants may increase the risk of autoimmune disease in people who carry them today. Apparently, the Black Death, like the transition to pastoralism during the Bronze Age, may have been a selective event that increased the chance for future generations to have autoimmune diseases.

Note:

1. MS is Multiple Sclerosis (多發性硬化症). It is used in the context of evolutionary medicine to describe a chronic autoimmune disease where the body's immune system mistakenly attacks the central nervous system. The attacks explain how gene variants that once protected ancient humans from infectious diseases have now become risk factors for developing Multiple Sclerosis due to modern hygiene and lifestyle changes.

我們的基因演化是為了對抗古老的威脅，但在現代社會，其中一些變化可能對我們不利

Recently The New York Times reported the following:

Where Do Autoimmune Diseases Come From? (1/2)

Our genes evolved to fight ancient threats, but in the modern world, some of those changes may be turning against us.

The NYT - By David Quammen (David Quammen is a science journalist and author of 19 books. This piece is part of “Disease States,” his new series on evolution and disease.)

Published Oct. 20, 2026, Updated Oct. 22, 2026

Evolution doesn’t have purposes, only results. Darwinian natural selection doesn’t shape creatures to be “better” or “higher” in some objective, transcendent sense — it shapes creatures to succeed in the here and now. And what works in one environment or period of time may prove harmful in another. Some scientists say this fact of evolution might help explain the origins of human autoimmune diseases.

They are a bit mysterious, autoimmune diseases, but far from rare. They include multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, Type 1 diabetes, lupus, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis and possibly more than 100 others. Some of them cause misery, some discomfort and inconvenience and some can be fatal. What these conditions share is that, for reasons still unclear, a person’s immune cells begin attacking the body’s own tissues and organs instead of just defending against invaders like viruses and bacteria.

Autoimmune diseases are believed to affect about 15 million people in the United States and between 5 and 10 percent of the population of industrialized countries, as well as a smaller percentage in developing countries. And the numbers are rising, probably because of environmental factors, including diet and pollutants, which play a role in setting off these illnesses. But genetic factors likely play a role, too, and that’s where research in recent years has revealed an intriguing pattern.

Autoimmune diseases may arise partly from the action of genes and gene combinations that were valuable at earlier stages of human history but are now disadvantageous. More specifically, scientists have found evidence of natural selection for certain gene variants during the Bronze Age, which began about 5,000 years ago and spanned two millenniums. Those same variants may increase the risk of autoimmune disease in people who carry them today. The term for such opposing effects is “antagonistic pleiotropy,” and a simple way of explaining it is that sometimes a gene helps, and other times it harms.

Why would some gene variants perform a valuable service for ancient humans but be a disservice now? One answer, supported by recent studies that draw on genetic sequencing of ancient human DNA and comparisons of those sequences with modern genomes, involves infectious disease.

During those earlier millenniums, humans transitioned from being hunter-gatherers in small, mobile bands to two other ways of living: as farmers and as pastoralists. Farmers were sedentary. Pastoralists turned wild animals into cattle, sheep and goats, and traveled across wide areas so their livestock could graze. Farming brought people into close contact with plants. Pastoralism brought people into close contact with the viruses, bacteria and other infectious agents that wild (and then domesticated) animals carry.

Many of those pathogens crossed into the pastoralists, creating what are now called zoonotic diseases — animal infections that spill over to humans. Survival against such disease threats involved luck and genes. Natural selection culled out the unlucky, leaving populations of survivors who carried lucky gene variants that offered resistance against the infections. 

But those protective gene variants of the Bronze Age, it now seems, may have a negative effect in our modern era of good sanitation systems, antibiotics, antiseptics and other infection control measures. By increasing the sensitivity of the immune system to an extreme level, they have become risk factors for autoimmune diseases. That’s the antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis anyway.

And scientists have found evidence to support it. Researchers at the University of Oxford and their collaborators elsewhere reported a strong correlation between certain gene variants that spread rapidly among European populations around 5,000 years ago and those linked to an elevated chance of having multiple sclerosis today. The variants became more common as migrant pastoralists from the Eurasian steppe began arriving in Europe. Most of those gene variants delivered some protection against certain viral and bacterial infections, or against parasites, helping humans to adapt not just to the pastoral lifestyle, but to increases in population density, which intensified the transmission and circulation of infectious diseases.

(to be continued)

自體免疫疾病從何而來？ （1/2）

我們的基因演化是為了對抗古老的威脅，但在現代社會，其中一些變化可能對我們不利

進化沒有目的，只有結果。達爾文的自然選擇 並非塑造生物體使其在某種客觀、超越日常經驗的意義上“更好”或“更高”，而是塑造生物體使其在當下取得成功。在一個特定環境或時期有效，在另一種環境或時期可能有害。一些科學家認為，演化的事實或許有助於解釋人類自體免疫疾病的起源。

自體免疫疾病有些神秘，但絕非罕見。這些疾病包括多發性硬化症、類風濕性關節炎、第1型糖尿病、紅斑性狼瘡、克隆氏症、乾癬，以及其他可能超過100種的疾病。有些疾病會造成痛苦，有些會造成不適和不便，有些則可能致命。這些疾病的共同點在於，由於一些尚未明確的原因，人體的免疫細胞開始攻擊自身的組織和器官，而不是像正常情況下那樣抵抗病毒和細菌等入侵者。

美國相信約有1,500萬人患有自體免疫疾病，已開發國家的盛行率在5%到10%之間，發展中國家的盛行率則更低。而且，患病人數還在上升，這可能是由於環境因素，包括飲食和污染物，在誘發這些疾病方面發揮了作用。但遺傳因素也可能發揮了作用，而近年來，研究揭示了一種有趣的模式。

自體免疫疾病的出現可能部分源自於某些基因及其組合的作用，這些基因在人類歷史早期階段具有重要價值，但如今卻有害。更具體地說，科學家發現了青銅時代（始於約5,000年前，持續兩千年）某些基因變異受到自然選擇的證據。如今，攜帶這些變異的人群罹患自體免疫疾病的風險可能會增加。這種相反的作用被稱為“拮抗性多效性”(antagonistic pleiotropy)，簡單來說就是一個基因有時有益，有時卻有害。

為什麼有些基因變異對古代人類有益，但如今卻有害呢？近期一些研究利用古代人類DNA的基因定序，並將這些序列與現代基因組進行比較，得出的答案之一與傳染病有關。

在早期的幾千年裡，人類從小型遊牧部落的狩獵採集生活方式過渡到另外兩種生活方式：農業和畜牧。農業是定居的。牧民將野生動物馴化成牛、羊和山羊，並遷移到廣闊的地區放牧。農業使人們與植物密切接觸。而畜牧業則使人們與野生（後來是家養）動物攜帶的病毒、細菌和其他病原體密切接觸。

許多病原體透過畜牧業傳播到牧民身上，形成瞭如今被稱為人畜共患病的疾病 - 動物受到感染後傳染給人類的疾病。抵禦此類疾病威脅的生存取決於運氣和基因。自然選擇 淘汰了不幸者，留下了攜帶幸運基因變異的倖存者，這些基因變異能夠抵抗感染。

但現在看來，這些青銅時代的保護性基因變異，在我們這個擁有良好衛生系統、抗生素、消毒劑和其他感染控制措施的現代社會，可能產生了負面影響。它們將免疫系統的敏感性提高到極致，從而成為自體免疫疾病的危險因子。這就是拮抗性多效性假設。

科學家已經找到了支持這項假設的證據。牛津大學的研究人員及其合作者報告稱，大約5,000年前在歐洲人群中迅速傳播的某些基因變異，與如今多發性硬化症高發生風險相關的基因變異之間存在很強的相關性。隨著來自歐亞草原的牧民遷移到歐洲，這些基因變異變得越來越普遍。大多數基因變異能夠提供一定的保護，抵抗某些病毒、細菌感染或寄生蟲，幫助人類不僅適應了遊牧生活方式，也適應了人口密度增加帶來的傳染病傳播和加劇擴散。

 （待續）

Note:

1. Antagonistic pleiotropy (拮抗性多效性) is a theory in evolutionary biology that holds that certain genes confer beneficial effects early in an organism's life, enhancing survival or fertility, while also causing detrimental effects later in life. It provides an explanation for why some genes are not eliminated by natural selection even though they are associated with catastrophic health outcomes, especially in older age. (Wikipedia)

2. Darwinian natural selection (自然選擇) theories that evolution doesn’t have purposes, it doesn’t shape creatures to be “better” or “higher” in some objective, transcendent sense — it only shapes creatures to succeed in the here and now.

China’s September Consumer Price Index: Slight Increase, Yet Remains Below 1% for Third Consecutive Month

Recently NHK News on-line reported the following:

中国 9月消費者物価指数 前月比やや拡大も3か月連続1％下回る

2026年10月14日 14:35

消費者物価指数

中国の9月の消費者物価指数は去年の同じ月と比べて0.9％上昇しました。8月からやや拡大しましたが、3か月連続で1％を下回りました。

中国の国家統計局が14日発表した9月の消費者物価指数は去年の同じ月と比べて0.9％上昇しました。

伸び率は8月から0.1ポイント拡大しましたが、3か月連続で1％を下回りました。

品目別では中東情勢を受けてガソリンが16.6％上昇したほか、半導体の価格高騰を背景にスマートフォンは14.9％上昇しました。

一方、食料品は1.7％、乗用車は1.7％、それぞれ下落し、個人消費の弱さが反映されています。

あわせて発表された企業が製品を出荷する際の値動きを示す9月の生産者物価指数は5.0％上昇し、8月から1.2ポイント拡大しました。

中東情勢を受けた原油や冬の暖房用の石炭の価格の上昇が主な要因で、伸び率は2022年6月以来の高い水準となりました。

Translation

China’s September Consumer Price Index: Slight Increase, Yet Remains Below 1% for Third Consecutive Month

Consumer Price Index (CPI)

China’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) for September rose by 0.9% compared to the same month last year. While this represented a slight increase from August, the figure had remained below 1% for the third consecutive month.

According to data released by China’s National Bureau of Statistics on the 14th, the Consumer Price Index for September increased by 0.9% year-on-year.

Although the growth rate rose by 0.1 percentage points from August, it had stayed under 1% for three months in a row.

By category, gasoline prices climbed 16.6%—affected by the situation in the Middle East—while smartphone prices rose by 14.9%, driven by a sharp surge in semiconductor costs.

Conversely, prices for food items and passenger vehicles both fell by 1.7%, reflecting weakness in personal consumption.

Separately, the Producer Price Index (PPI)—which tracked price changes for products as they left the factory—rose by 5.0% in September, an increase of 1.2 percentage points from August.

This growth, which reached its highest level since June 2022, was primarily driven by rising prices for crude oil affected by the situation in the Middle East, and the prices of coal used for winter heating.

So, the Producer Price Index rose by 5.0% in September, an increase of 1.2 percentage points from August. This growth was primarily driven by rising prices for crude oil coal. Meanwhile, prices for food items and passenger vehicles both fell by 1.7%, reflecting the fact that personal consumption in China is still weak.

University of Tokyo and others successfully reduce substances that cause Alzheimer's disease in mice

 Recently NHK News on-line reported the following:

アルツハイマー病の原因物質減らす マウスで実験成功 東大など

2026年10月11日 5:50

医療・健康

脳の老廃物を排出する機能を薬で活性化することで、アルツハイマー病の原因とされるたんぱく質の蓄積を抑えることにマウスを使った実験で成功したと東京大学などのグループが発表しました。

ヒトを含む動物の脳には、脳脊髄液などを通じて老廃物を外に出す「グリンパティックシステム」と呼ばれる機能があるとする説が注目されていて、アルツハイマー病などの治療や予防への活用を目指した研究が世界で進められています。

東京大学と新潟大学などの研究グループは、脳脊髄液の排出を促すことで脳の中にある、アルツハイマー病の原因の1つとされる「タウ」というたんぱく質の量に変化があるかを調べました。

人工的にタウが脳にたまるようにしたマウスに脳脊髄液の流れを促す薬を3か月間投与する実験を行ったところ、投与したマウスはしなかったマウスと比べてタウの蓄積が4割ほど抑えられたということです。

研究グループは脳にもともと備わる機能を活性化して原因とされるたんぱく質を取り除くことで、病気の進行を抑えられる可能性が示されたとしています。

東京大学認知症共生社会創成治療学の山田薫特任准教授は「ヒトに応用するためには薬剤の安全性や効果をより慎重に検討する必要がある。脳の老廃物の排出メカニズムをさらに詳しく調べていきたい」と話していました。

Translation

University of Tokyo and others successfully reduce substances that cause Alzheimer's disease in mice

October 11, 2026, 5:50 AM

Medical & Health

A research group including the University of Tokyo announced success in an experiment using mice to suppress the accumulation of a protein related to Alzheimer's disease by using a drug to activate the brain's waste-clearance function.

Attention was focused on the theory that the brains of humans and other animals possess a mechanism known as the "glymphatic system," which expelled waste products via cerebrospinal fluid; researches were carried out globally aiming at utilizing this system for the treatment and prevention of conditions like Alzheimer's disease.

A research group comprising members from the University of Tokyo, Niigata University, and others investigated whether facilitating the drainage of cerebrospinal fluid would change the levels of "tau"—a protein in the brain considered a cause of Alzheimer's disease.

In an experiment, mice genetically modified to accumulate tau in their brains were administered a drug that stimulated cerebrospinal fluid flow for three months. The results showed that tau accumulation was reduced by approximately 40% in the treated mice compared to those that did not receive the drug.

The research group suggested these findings indicated a potential way to slow disease progression by activating the brain's innate functions to remove the causative protein.

Kaoru Yamada (山田薫), a specially appointed associate professor in the Department of Dementia Co-creation and Therapeutic Innovation at the University of Tokyo, stated, "To apply this to human, we need to carefully evaluate the safety and efficacy of the drug. We intend to investigate the brain's waste-clearance mechanisms in greater detail."

So, a research group in Japan has announced success in an experiment using mice to suppress the accumulation of a protein related to Alzheimer's disease by using a drug to activate the brain's waste-clearance function. Apparently, it is important to know how safe and effective it will be to apply this drug to human.

癌症疫苗是美國國立衛生研究院的下一個「重大押注」（2/2）

Cancer Vaccines Are the N.I.H.’s Next ‘Big Bet’ (2/2)

New details have emerged about an initiative that starts in December to fast-track the vaccines, similar to the successful push for the Covid-19 vaccine.

The NYT - By Gina Kolata

Oct. 9, 2026

(continue)

Though the public-private partnership will draw inspiration and lessons from the global development of the Covid-19 vaccine, the timeline for the cancer vaccines will be nowhere near as fast. Phase 1 of the initiative, which will consist of small studies, is expected to take about three years and lead to “go-to information on different technical approaches to vaccines,” Dr. Letai said.

Larger trials in Phase 2 are expected to take at least four years, involve a national network of clinical trial sites and lead to definitive results. The ultimate goal, Dr. Adam said, is that “in seven to 10 years, anyone who walks into a doctor’s office can get a vaccine.”

That is still faster than would be expected without the initiative where it can take eight to 15 years to get F.D.A. approval, Dr. Adam said. And work would have been fragmented and uncoordinated.

It was small, fragmented studies with promising results that inspired the initiative.

They included, for example, one involving patients with kidney cancer that was led by Dr. Catherine J. Wu of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and her colleagues. The researchers took tumor cells from patients with advanced kidney cancer at the time of their initial surgery. Then, for each patient, they created a vaccine designed to attack the tumor’s unique mutations.

It is impossible to know if the patients were entirely cured in such a small study, but all nine were cancer-free after 40 months. Ordinarily, 30 to 50 percent would have relapsed within two years.

Dr. Wu and her colleagues are now developing vaccines for patients with glioblastoma, as well as for those with ovarian cancer.

Another encouraging early study focused on pancreatic cancer. Even with the best treatments, close to 90 percent of patients die within five years, said Dr. Vinod Balachandran of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

His group conceived the idea for a small study in 2017 and began it in 2019. When a patient had surgery to remove their pancreatic cancer, the investigators collected tumor tissue and shipped it to Genentech and BioNTech, a company that later produced Covid vaccines. The companies pinpointed the mutations unique to a patient’s cancer and then made a customized vaccine.

The investigators treated 16 patients and followed them for up to six years. Seven out of eight who responded to the vaccine are still alive, compared with just two out of the eight who did not respond.

That initial study, though — promising as it was — was not definitive.

“We cannot prove that vaccines are making patients live longer,” Dr. Balachandran said. His group and its industry partners began a much bigger study in 2023, enrolling 260 patients.

Based on what he has seen so far, Dr. Balachandran is hopeful about the future of vaccine therapy. With pancreatic cancer, he took on a cancer thought to be impervious to immune system attacks: “If we crack the toughest nut,” he said, “we can crack the rest.”

Translation

癌症疫苗是美國國立衛生研究院的下一個「重大押注」（2/2）

一項旨在加速癌症疫苗研發的計劃將於12月啟動，其模式與成功推動新冠疫苗研發的模式類似。該計劃的最新細節已經浮現

（繼續）

儘管這項公私合作計劃將從全球新冠疫苗的研發中汲取靈感和經驗，但癌症疫苗的研發速度遠不及新冠疫苗。Letai 博士表示該計劃的第一階段將包括一些小型研究，預計耗時約三年，並導致「成為關於不同疫苗技術方法的參考資訊」。

第二階段的大規模試驗預計至少需要四年時間，將涉及一個覆蓋全國的臨床試驗中心網絡，並最終得出確切結果。Adam 博士表示，最終目標是「在七到十年內，任何走進診所的人都能接種疫苗」。

Adam 博士說，即便如此，速度仍然比在沒有這項計劃下預期的要快得多，因為如果沒有這項計劃，獲得 FDA 批准可能需要8到15年。而且，如果沒有這項計劃，工作將會非常分散且缺乏協調。

正是那些取得令人鼓舞的小型、分散的研究成果促成了這項計劃的誕生。

例如，其中一項研究涉及腎癌患者，由 Dana-Farber 癌症研究所的 Catherine J. Wu 博士及其同事領導。研究人員在患者首次手術時從晚期腎癌患者身上提取了腫瘤細胞。然後，他們為每位患者開發了一種疫苗，旨在攻擊腫瘤特有的突變。

在這樣一項小型研究中，我們無法確定患者是否完全治愈，但所有九名患者在40個月後均未出現癌症復發。通常情況下，30%到50%的患者會在兩年內復發。

Wu博士及其同事目前正在研發針對膠質母細胞瘤和卵巢癌患者的疫苗。

另一項令人鼓舞的早期研究聚焦於胰臟癌。Memorial Sloan Kettering 癌症中心的 Vinod Balachandran 博士表示，即使接受最好的治療，近90%的患者也會在五年內死亡。

他的團隊在2017年構思了一項小型研究，並於2019年啟動。當患者接受胰臟癌切除手術時，研究人員會收集腫瘤組織並將其送到 Genentech 和 BioNTech， 即那家後來研發出新冠疫苗的公司。這兩家公司會確定患者癌症特有的突變，然後研發度身定做的疫苗。

研究人員對16名患者進行了治療，並對他們進行了長達六年的追蹤。 8名對疫苗有反應的患者中，7名仍存活；而8名沒有反應的患者中，只有2名仍存活。

然而，這項初步研究 - 儘管前景可觀 - 卻並非是最終定論。

Balachandran 博士說: 「我們無法證實疫苗是能真的延長患者的壽命」。他的團隊及其產業夥伴於2023年啟動了一項規模更大的研究，招募了260名患者。

根據目前所見，Balachandran 博士對疫苗療法的未來充滿希望。他曾攻克胰腺癌，這種癌症一度被認為能抵禦免疫系統攻擊的癌症 - 他說:“如果我們能攻克最難攻克的難題”，“我們就能攻克其他難題。”

              So, a new type of cancer treatment by using vaccines is so promising that it demands a national effort to expedite researches that will involve many medical institutes in the US to work together to develop and test the new vaccines. The ultimate goal is that in seven to 10 years, anyone who walks into a doctor’s office can get a vaccine. Apparently, this is good news for everyone.

Note:

1.Genentech and BioNTech are two separate, independent companies. Although they have partnered on major medical research projects, they have completely distinct corporate identities, history, and parent structures. The two companies are frequently mentioned together because they entered into a high-profile, multi-million-dollar strategic collaboration to co-develop individualized mRNA-based cancer immunotherapies. (Google)

癌症疫苗是美國國立衛生研究院的下一個「重大押注」（1/2）

Recently The New York Times reported the following:

Cancer Vaccines Are the N.I.H.’s Next ‘Big Bet’ (1/2)

New details have emerged about an initiative that starts in December to fast-track the vaccines, similar to the successful push for the Covid-19 vaccine.

The NYT - By Gina Kolata

Oct. 9, 2026

A new type of cancer treatment — vaccines — is so promising that it demands a national effort to expedite discoveries, said the director of the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Anthony Letai.

“We can do things that would not otherwise be done,” he said of new resources being made available at the National Institutes of Health. “We can place big bets on new ideas.”

The big bet is a planned public-private partnership involving the N.I.H, the nonprofit Foundation for the N.I.H., researchers, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, advocacy groups, philanthropies and patients, all working together to develop and test the vaccines.

The vaccines are treatments that are unique to each patient by prompting the immune system to attack a patient’s specific cancer. The injections teach the immune system’s T cells to home in on aberrant proteins found on a patient’s tumor and nowhere else.

“We hope this will be like Covid vaccines,” said Stacey Adam, a senior clinical officer at the Foundation for the N.I.H., referring to the public-private partnership that led to the rapid development of vaccines for the coronavirus.

She said the vaccine program was expected to begin in December, starting with a focus on pancreatic cancer, liver cancer and colorectal cancer, as well as a subset of pediatric tumors.

An unpublished white paper report, which was shared exclusively with The New York Times, explains the vaccine initiative and states that what is now possible with vaccines was “largely theoretical a decade ago.”

The project is still a bet: There is no guarantee that the early promise of cancer vaccines will pay off. The history of medicine is littered with tales of treatments that seemed incredible in early studies only to fail in larger tests.

Yet enthusiasm for the vaccines is running high.

“This is a completely new frontier,” said Karen Knudsen, the chief executive officer of the Parker Institute. The institute has two representatives working with the N.I.H. initiative and is also funding vaccine studies, positioning them as one of its main priorities.

Initial results from studies of vaccines for melanoma, pancreatic cancer, renal cell cancer and even glioblastoma — the brain cancer that has so far resisted all forms of treatment — are “incredibly encouraging,” Dr. Knudsen said.

Cancer vaccines are different from the Covid-19 vaccines or vaccines for other diseases like the measles or flu. Those vaccines prevent disease. Cancer vaccines, however, attack a cancer that is already present.

But they are similar to the Covid vaccine because most use mRNA technology, which had fallen out of favor with the Trump administration.

So far, just one vaccine study has been large enough to show definitive results. It involved 1,137 people with advanced melanoma.

Merck and Moderna, which conducted the study, reported in August that the vaccine increased the time before cancers recurred and increased the time before they spread. The companies plan to reveal the full data set later this month.

Dr. Adam was optimistic: “The science is there, the technologies are there,” she said.

“Everything is coming to a head,” she added. “Now is the time to jump start.”

(to be continued)

Translation

癌症疫苗是美國國立衛生研究院的下一個「重大押注」（1/2）

一項旨在加速癌症疫苗研發的計劃將於12月啟動，其模式與成功推動新冠疫苗研發的模式類似。該計劃的最新細節已經浮現

美國國家癌症研究所所長 Anthony Letai 博士表示，一種新型癌症療法 - 疫苗 - 其前景如此光明，需要舉全國之力加快其研發進程。

他談到美國國立衛生研究院 (N.I.H) 正有新資源可用時說：“我們可以做一些以前做不到的事情。我們可以對新理念進行重大押注。

這項重大押注是一項計劃中的公私合作項目，參與者包括美國國立衛生研究院、非營利組織美國國立衛生研究院基金會、研究人員、製藥和生物技術公司、倡導團體、慈善機構和患者，他們將共同致力於疫苗的研發和測試。

這些疫苗是針對每位患者度身定制的治療方案，旨在激發免疫系統攻擊患者特定的癌症。注射的疫苗能夠訓練免疫系統的T細胞，使其精準辨識並攻擊患者腫瘤上存在的異常蛋白，而不會攻擊其他的部位。

美國國立衛生研究院基金會高級臨床官員 Stacey Adam 說:「我們希望這能像新冠疫苗一樣成功」。她指的是促成新冠病毒疫苗快速研發的公私合作模式。

她表示，疫苗計劃預計12月啟動，初期將聚焦在胰臟癌、肝癌和大腸癌，以及部分兒童腫瘤。

一份尚未發表的白皮書報告（獨家提供給《紐約時報》）解釋了這項疫苗計劃，並指出，如今疫苗所能實現的，在「十年前還只是理論上的設想」。

該計劃仍是一個押注：癌症疫苗早期的預期能否最終實現尚無定論。醫學史上充斥著這樣的例子：有些療法在早期研究中看似難以置信，但在更大規模的試驗中卻以失敗告終。

然而，人們對疫苗的熱情卻異常高漲。

帕克研究所執行長 Karen Knudsen 說:「這是一個全新的領域」。該研究所派出兩名代表參與美國國立衛生研究院（NIH）的疫苗研發計劃，並資助疫苗研究，將其列為主要優先事項之一。

Dr. Knudsen 博士表示，針對黑色素瘤、胰腺癌、腎細胞癌，甚至膠質母細胞瘤（一種迄今為止對所有治療方法都無效的腦癌）的疫苗研究的初步結果「令人鼓舞」。

癌症疫苗與新冠疫苗或其他疾病（如麻疹或流感）的疫苗不同。後者的疫苗旨在預防疾病，而癌症疫苗則針對已存在的癌細胞進行攻擊。

但它們與新冠疫苗也有相似之處，因為大多數癌症疫苗都採用了 mRNA 技術，而這項技術曾一度被特朗普政府所摒棄。

迄今為止，只有一項疫苗研究的規模足夠大，能夠得出明確的結果。研究納入了1,137名晚期黑色素瘤患者。

進行這項研究的 Merck and Moderna 公司在8月報告稱，該疫苗拖慢了癌症復發和擴散的時間。兩家公司計劃在本月稍後公佈完整的數據集。

Adam 博士對此持樂觀態度- 她說: 「科學已經成熟，技術也已到位」。

她補充道: “一切都到了關鍵時刻”; “現在是行動的時候了。”

（待續）

在與美國的競爭中，中國難以吸引外國人工智能研究人員

 Recently The New York Times reported the following:

In Race with U.S., China Struggles to Recruit Foreign A.I. Researchers

China’s booming artificial intelligence sector has given local researchers good reason to remain in the country, but it has yet to lure overseas scientists despite a government push.

The NYT - By Zeyi Yang

Oct. 6, 2026

As the United States and China vie for A.I. dominance, the Trump administration has made it more difficult for companies to hire foreign researchers, while China has made recruiting the world’s best scientists a national priority.

Over the past two years, China has flung open its doors to international researchers, introducing a visa for scientists and offering lucrative research grants.

Despite those efforts, foreigners are not coming.

Worse still for China’s ambitions, the number of Chinese scientists working in the United States has risen rather than declined, according to a new study about global A.I. research. 

For every 30 Chinese researchers in the United States working on artificial intelligence in 2025, only one in China made the opposite journey, according to the study, conducted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank.

“Despite U.S.-China tensions, the number of Chinese-origin researchers working in the U.S. actually rose by four percentage points rather than declined” compared with three years ago, said Damien Ma, who led the study.

The study determined the flow of scientists around the world by examining research papers accepted by last year’s NeurIPS, an academic conference focused on machine learning and computational neuroscience. Mr. Ma and his team analyzed where the papers’ authors went to college, received graduate degrees and ended up working.

The results affirm the popular understanding that the United States and China are the two places where most frontier A.I. research is being produced. While China is failing to recruit foreign researchers, the study found, it is seeing a boon in retaining local talent, people who have risen though the domestic education system and are increasingly choosing not to seek work overseas. The United States, on the other hand, maintains its lead by employing foreign researchers, many of whom previously emigrated from China, as well as India, South Korea and elsewhere.

The Carnegie study counts those researchers who migrated from one country to another, but it does not indicate when a researcher moved. One explanation for why the number of Chinese scientists working in America remains high is that they arrived before the Trump administration imposed restrictions on obtaining visas and cut research funding last year.

“There is a delay effect — the researchers in this study mostly made their decisions years ago to study or work here,” said Yingyi Ma, a sociology professor at Syracuse University who studies Asian students in the United States. “The danger for the U.S. is a slow erosion of its appeal to attract talent that compounds over decades. By the time the effect shows up in the data, it is hard to reverse.”

For years, Chinese scientists and their peers from around the world were drawn to the United States, which offered career opportunities at start-ups and ample academic funding. But China has gained significant ground in recent years as an alternative for A.I. researchers.

In 2022, only six of the top 30 institutions publishing papers at NeurIPS were based in China; in 2025, that number rose to 12. Peking University and Tsinghua University, two of China’s top academic institutions, sat at the top of the chart, eclipsing American heavyweights like M.I.T., Stanford and Carnegie Mellon. Chinese researchers also made up 41 percent of the published authors at NeurIPS last year, eclipsing U.S. researchers, who stood at 34 percent.

Today, China has an abundance of workplaces for A.I. researchers, including well-funded universities, big tech companies and start-ups, said Kevin Xu, the founder of Interconnected Capital, a hedge fund that invests in A.I. technologies. As Chinese companies like DeepSeek and Moonshot repeatedly make names for themselves on the global stage, they also become more attractive to top talent.

“The fact that being able to work at DeepSeek gives you just as much professional prestige and future success as working at OpenAI is quite different from what we’ve observed five years ago, when the path was between working at Google versus Tencent,” Mr. Xu said.

The ascendancy of Chinese companies might explain why a vast majority of Chinese A.I. researchers choose to remain in the country. But, Mr. Xu added, there’s another reason some researchers remain in China: The government is unwilling to let them go.

This year, the Chinese government restricted the two founders of Manus, an A.I. start-up that was set to be acquired by Meta for $2 billion, from leaving the country. Since then, travel by Chinese A.I. entrepreneurs and researchers — as well as by their spouses and children — has been further curtailed, according to a recent Bloomberg report.

While China is struggling to recruit foreign talent, it has made some gains in its effort to encourage Chinese researchers and executives abroad  to return.

The Chinese tech giant Tencent last year appointed Yao Shunyu, a former OpenAI researcher, as its chief A.I. scientist. The move was seen as one of the most notable examples of an A.I. researcher returning to China after having studied and worked in the West.

Despite China’s new offers of visas and grant money, Silicon Valley still provides more attractive offers and investment opportunities than China for American researchers. Also, moving to a country with few immigrants and a different language is always going to be a challenge.

“For everybody else who’s outside the walled garden, culturally or digitally, it’s still very hard to break into,” Mr. Xu said.

Translation

在與美國的競爭中，中國難以吸引外國人工智能研究人員

中國蓬勃發展的人工智能產業讓本土研究人員有充分的理由留在國內，但儘管政府大力推動，仍未能吸引海外科學家

隨著中美兩國在人工智能領域展開激烈競爭，特朗普政府加大了企業聘用外國研究人員的難度，而中國則將招募全球頂尖科學家列為國家優先事項。

過去兩年，中國向國際研究人員敞開了大門，推出了科學家簽證，並提供豐厚的研究經費。

儘管如此，外國人仍然沒有來。

更糟的是，一項關於全球人工智能研究的新研究表明，在美國工作的中國科學家人數不降反升。

卡內基國際和平基金會（一家智庫）進行的一項研究顯示，在2025年在美国，從事人工智能研究的中国研究人员每增加30人，在中国，做出了相反選擇 [即前往中国從事人工智能研究] 的就只有1人。

該研究的負責人 Damien Ma 表示：“儘管中美關係緊張，但與三年前相比，在美國工作的華裔研究人員數量實際上增加了4個百分點，而不是下降。”

這項研究透過分析去年 NeurIPS（專注於機器學習和計算神經科學的學術會議）接收的研究論文，來確定全球科學家的流動情況。Ma及其團隊分析了論文作者的大學、研究生學位和最終工作地點。

研究結果證實了人們普遍的看法，即美國和中國是人工智能前沿研究的主要產地。研究發現，儘管中國在吸引外國研究人員方面進展緩慢，但卻在留住本土人才方面取得了顯著成效。這些人才大多透過國內教育體系脫穎而出，並且越來越傾向於留在國內工作，而不是出國謀生。另一方面，美國則透過聘用外國研究人員保持領先地位，其中許多人先前來自中國，以及印度、韓國和其他國家。

卡內基研究所的這項研究統計了從一個國家移居到另一個國家的研究人員，但並未指出研究人員移居的具體時間。中國科學家在美國工作的數量仍然居高不下的一個解釋是，他們在特朗普政府去年實施簽證限制和削減科研經費之前就已經抵達美國。

Syracuse大學研究在美國亞裔學生的社會學教授 Yingyi Ma 表示: 「這存在滯後效應 - 這項研究中的研究人員大多在幾年前就決定來美國學習或工作」，「美國面臨的危險在於，其吸引人才的吸引力正在緩慢下降，這種下降會持續數十年。等到這種影響在數據中顯現出來時，就很難逆轉了」。

多年來，中國科學家和世界各地的同行都被美國吸引，因為美國提供了新創公司的職業機會和充足的學術經費。但近年來，中國作為人工智能研究人員的另一選擇，已經取得了顯著進展。

2022年，在 NeurIPS 會議上發表論文排名前30的機構中，只有6家位於中國；到2025年，這一數字上升至12家。北京大學和清華大學這兩所中國頂尖學府位居榜首，超越了麻省理工學院、史丹佛大學和卡內基美隆大學等美國學術強校。去年，中國研究人員在 NeurIPS 會議的論文作者中佔比高達41%，超過了佔34%的美國研究人員。

專注於人工智能投資的對沖基金 Interconnected Capital 的創始人 Kevin Xu 表示如今，中國為人工智能研究人員提供了大量的工作場所，包括資金雄厚的大學、大型科技公司和新創公司。隨著 DeepSeek 和 Moonshot 等中國公司在國際舞台上不斷嶄露頭角，它們對頂尖人才的吸引力也日益增強。

Xu表示： “如今，在 DeepSeek 工作與在 OpenAI 工作一樣，都能獲得同樣的職業聲望和未來成功，這與我們五年前觀察到的情況截然不同。當時，人們的選擇往往是在谷歌和騰訊之間做出抉擇。”

中國公司的崛起或許可以解釋為什麼絕大多數中國人工智能研究人員選擇留在國內。但Xu補充道，有些研究人員留在中國還有另一個原因：政府不願意放他們離開。

今年，中國政府限制了人工智能新創公司Manus的兩名創辦人離境。 Manus 原本計劃被 Meta 以20億美元收購。根據彭博社最近的一篇報道，此後，中國人工智能企業家和研究人員及其配偶和子女的出行進一步受到限制。

儘管中國在吸引外籍人才方面面臨挑戰，但在鼓勵海外中國研究人員和高階主管回國方面已取得一些進展。

去年，中國科技巨頭騰訊任命前 OpenAI 研究員 Yao Shunyu 為首席人工智能科學家。此舉被視為人工智能研究人員在西方學習和工作後回國的最顯著案例之一。

儘管中國提供了新的簽證和資助，但對美國研究人員而言，矽谷仍然比中國更具吸引力，提供更多投資機會。此外，移居到一個有較少移民且語言不同的國家始終充滿挑戰。

Xu說: 「對於身處『封閉式花園』之外的所有人來說，無論是在文化上還是在數位領域，想要融入其中仍然非常困難」。

So, China has made recruiting the world’s best scientists a national priority. Over the past two years, China has open its doors to international researchers, introducing a visa for scientists and offering huge research grants. Despite those efforts, foreigners are not coming. It seems that for American researchers, Silicon Valley still provides more attractive offers and investment opportunities than China. Apparently, moving to a country with few immigrants and a different language will always be a challenge.