New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Surviving Side Effects

Security fears spawn ways to treat radiotherapy's downside

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


After the September 11 attacks, Congress became worried that terrorists targeting the U.S. might explode a radiological weapon—most likely a “dirty” bomb, a kind of weapon that relies on a conventional explosive to spread radioactive materials packed around it. In 2004 Congress funded several research centers to create drugs to protect survivors and first responders from radiation injury. But the biggest beneficiary of this research might be a much different and far larger group of people: cancer patients.

Some 10.5 million Americans are living with cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute. These patients must conquer not one but two different diseases. “When we are talking about cancer survivors,” explains Andrei Gudkov, senior vice president for basic research at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y., “we mean survivors both from the disease itself and from the treatment of the disease.” That is because the two common treatments—radiation therapy and chemotherapy—generally attack healthy tissue as well as tumors, causing long- and short-term complications. Radiotherapy sometimes even gives patients new tumors years later, Gudkov says. The complications also prevent many cancer patients from receiving doses large enough to treat the disease and survive. “So if we can reduce the chances of complications,” says radiation oncologist Mitchell Anscher of Virginia Commonwealth University, “that’s half the battle right there.”

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe