Srsly, what the fuck is an 'oncogene'? Genes involved in cancer DO NOT FORM ANY SORT OF NATURAL CLASS. You can name a gene family based on phylogeny (best), or function (still ok), but involvement in this massive variety of often-unrelated cell-cycle and growth related defects we lump together as 'cancer'? FUCK NO. And "oncoprotein" makes me hurl even farther.
Furthermore, what the flying fuck is a "proto-oncogene"!? A gene that is just poised to cause/inhibit cancer but evolution hasn't allowed it yet?
'Oncogene', 'oncoprotein' and all derivations thereof must be BANNED. There is no value whatsoever to lumping genes into such categories, especially for cancer research. First of all, we have "cancer-related", which has the vague air about it that is justly deserved ('oncogene' sounds so concrete...); second of all, you'd think that something being vaguely involved in cancer somehow must be about the most useless information ever for cancer researchers. Aren't they more interested in how this gene is involved, not that it can somehow participate in this absurdly complicated process ultimately involving the entire fucking cell?
Anyway, my two cents before I run off to a cell physiol exam... aren't you glad you don't have to teach me? =P
Lessons on management styles from Edward Teller, Hans Bethe and Robert Oppenheimer: A question of temperament
3 days ago in The Curious Wavefunction