Other scientists in the meantime have ade a number of advances in understanding the protein's functions. Most commonly, the protein within a cell adds a phosphorous atom to another protein known as amino acid tyrosine. This seemingly minor action, however, has intriguing effects on living tissues and is somehow related to normal growth in skin cells.
Moreover, scientists have also discovered that the proteins act on the chemical adenosine triphosphate usually known as ATP. This is the key energy chemical in all animal and human cells, and by impinging on this substance, the proteins are in an extremely powerful position to change a cell.
Further research has shown that some cells cannot produce oncagenes. But, they still may be able to induce tumor growth by somehow instructing another cell to produce oncagenes and cause cancer.
Stemming from Erikson's identification of oncagenes in chickens, scientists have jumped rapidly into various related areas of research, leading to a further series of discoveries pushing the field closer to its ultimate goal.
Despite the progress, however, scientists critical links of information are missing Moreover, not all the obstacles are scientific as competition and sluggish cooperation among researchers has plagued the work.
An a field where the scientific stakes are as high as the personal ones, researchers often withhold information from each other as government funding is limited. The need to show significant advancement to attain the necessary support to continue research prevents scientists from cooperating with each other, scientists say.
"Some people talk to each other and some don't, but relations are far from ideal," says Geoffrey M. Cooper, associate professor of pathology at the Medical School. "But its like crime on the streets. How do you get rid of it?" he adds.
Others, however, downplay the damage. "It's competetive, but it dosn't hinder the science," Hunter says. "There maybe is some duplication of work, but you always find out what's going on within two or three months. It's amazing how scientists worry about precedent when it dosn't really make a difference in the long run," he adds.
Despite the more than $1 billion received annually from various sources that is poured into cancer research, only a small percentage has gone to oncagene research. The trend, however, is shifting, says. Director of the Dana Farber Cancer Institutre Emil Frei.
"Priorities are constantly shifting in terms of how money is spent, but oncagene research is establishing itself as a priority," he says.
Approximately 80 percent of the cancer research funds come from government sourees, namely the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Cancer Society. Industry and other private sources provide the remainder of the funds.
While cancer resarch remains a high priority item, scientists say there is no telling how much more support will be necessary before cancer is brought under control.
"It's not like most areas. For example, with the space shuttle the government said they'd put in a certain amount of money and they will get a certain result. Cancer is different No one can tell us how much it will take to get us there," Cooper says.
Although cancer biologists are betting heavily on oncagene research to provide some clues, there is also strong sentiment that time and money be directed to other avenues of cancer resarch.
"Great advances have been made inreducing cancer deaths without oncagene research," Erikson says. "For example, many forms of leukemia are treatable now even though we don't understand it."
But he adds that there are also a vast number of currently untreatable forms of cancer which provide an impetus for oncagene research. "Without an understanding of the biochemical system, chances for survival in these cases will remain low."