Bloomberg presents the research finding in a different light: the article focuses on the fact that 1 compound out of 16000 researched was identified as the most effective at targeting cancer stem cells. However, the main outcome of the research, as NYTimes[1] points out, is that a new screening method has been developed to be able to quickly identify drugs that effectively target only the cancer stem cells. In fact, 32 chemicals were identifed as effective at killing stem cells. Only 1 of these is an approved drug.

The NYT article is more interesting because they mention two schools of thought among cancer researchers: on the one hand, there are researchers who think that only the stem cells must be targeted in order to completely kill off the cancer. They believe chemotherapy is ineffective because it kills all types of cells but fails to completely kill all the cancer stem cells. Even if 99% of the cells are targeted, the presence of remnant stem cells may result in the cancer returning. The other camp takes the view that it is not sufficient to kill stem cells only.

This is just my understanding of the articles. I'm not a biologist in any way & I'd love to read the views about the significance of these findings by hackers more versed with the topic

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/research/14cancer.h...