Professional Documents
Culture Documents
About
Initiatives
Education
News&Posts
Blogs
Subscribe
2020SCIENCE
ABOUT
AndrewMaynardisaProfessorof
EnvironmentalHealthSciencesatthe
UniversityofMichigan,anddirectstheUM
RiskScienceCenter.Hisinterestsfocuson
effectivesciencecommunicationthe
responsibledevelopmentanduseof
emergingtechnologiesmostnotably
nanotechnologyandsyntheticbiologyand
howunderstandingriskcanhelpinform
smartdecisions.
Badluckandcancerdidthemediagetitwrong?
January2,2015
AndrewMaynard
Thechancesarethat,ifyoufollownewsarticlesaboutcancer,youll
havecomeacrossheadlineslikeMostCancersCausedByBadLuck
(TheDailyBeast)orTwothirdsofcancersareduetobadluck,study
finds(CBSNews).ThestorybasedonresearchoutofJohns
HopkinsUniversityhasgrabbedwidespreadmediaattention.Butits
alsoraisedtheireofsciencecommunicatorswhothinkthatthe
headlinesandstoriesare,inthewordsofacoupleofwriters,just
bollocks.
Withallthecoverageofthepaper,andthesubsequentcoverageofthe
coverage,Iwasinterestedinjusthowoffbasethenewsarticleswere,
andtowhatextentthiswasdowntolazyreporting.
ThepaperinquestionisVariationincancerriskamongtissuescanbe
explainedbythenumberofstemcelldivisionsbyCristianTomasetti
andBertVogelstein,publishedthismonthinthejournalScience.Atthe
heartofthepapertheauthorslookathowstemcelldivisionsindifferent
tissuescorrelatewithlifetimeriskofdevelopingcancerinthosetissues.
Thestudyshowsaclearcorrelationwiththecancertypesconsidered
thefasterthestemcellsdivideinaparticulartissue,thegreaterthe
chanceofdevelopingcancerinthattissue.
Thetworesearchersthenteaseoutthedegreethattheythinkrandom
geneticmutations,asopposedtoenvironmentalandlifestylefactors,
influencecancerrisk.Theyconcludethat,outof31cancertypes
considered,22wereprimarilyassociatedwithrandomgeneticmutations
(theycalledtheseRtumorstheRstandingforrandom),andnine
wereassociatedwithenvironmentalfactorsontopoftheserandom
mutations(deterministictumors,orDtumors).
Intheauthorswords,
WerefertotumorswithrelativelylowERS[extrariskscore]asR
tumors(RforreplicativegreenclusterinFig.2)becausestochastic
factors,presumablyrelatedtoerrorsduringDNAreplication,most
stronglyappeartoaffecttheirrisk.
Inotherwords,outofthe31cancertypesstudied,theauthorsanalysis
showedthat70%ofthemjustovertwothirdswerepredominantly
Aswellaswritingaregularcolumnforthe
journalNatureNanotechnology,Andrew
postsregularlyonhispersonalblog"2020
Science",andonTwitteras@2020science.
Healsoproducesshort(andhopefully
entertaining)educationalvideoson
understandinghealthrisksontheYouTube
channelRiskBites
CONNECT
TWITTER:@2020science
YOUTUBE:RiskBites
FACEBOOK:2020Science
LINKEDIN:ANDREWMAYNARD
EMAIL:maynarda@umich.edu
FOLLOWONTWITTER
determinedbyrandommutationsandnotenvironmentalfactorswhat
theauthorsterminthepaperasbadluck.
Theinferencethatmanycancersandevencancertypescannot
easilybepreventedbyreducingenvironmentalexposuresorchanging
lifestyles,provedtobeamediamagnet.Headlinesresultedalongthe
linesof
CancerIsMoreBadLuckThanBadBehavior,StudySays
(Bloomberg)
TwoThirdsofCancerCasesAreSimplyDowntoBadLuck
(Gizmodo)
Twothirdsofadultcancerslargelydowntobadluckratherthan
genes(TheGuardian)
Mostcancertypesjustbadluck'(BBCNews)
Tweets
Follow
Andrew Maynard
@2020science
1h
6h
Andrew Maynard
@2020science
6h
Mostcancercasesduetobadluck'(DailyMail)
Andsomecommentatorswerentamused.
MichaelHeadforinstancetweeted
Michael Head
Follow
@michaelghead
Expand
Andrew Maynard
@2020science
3 Feb
Inresponsetomanyoftheheadlinesandarticles,AdamJacobs(linked
tointhetweetabove)wroteonhisblogTheStatsGuy
ApaperpublishedinSciencehasbeenwidelyreportedinthemedia
today.Accordingtomediareports,suchasthisone,thepaper
showedthattwothirdsofcancersaresimplyduetobadluck,and
onlyonethirdareduetoenvironmental,lifestyle,orgeneticrisk
factors.
Thepapershowsnosuchthing,ofcourse.
concludingwith
Weknowthatlifestyleishugelyimportantnotonlyforcancer,butfor
manyotherdiseasesaswell.Forthemediatoclaimthatlifestyle
isntimportant,basedonamisunderstandingofwhattheresearch
shows,ishighlyirresponsible.
OveratTheGuardian,themediaquestioningwastakenupbyBob
OHaraandGrrlScientistundertheheadlineBadluck,badjournalism
andcancerrates.Notpullingtheirpunches,theywrote:
Thebigscience/healthnewsstorythisweekisaboutcancerrates,
withnewsoutletssplashingheadlineslikeTwothirdsofadult
cancerslargelydowntobadluckratherthangenes(forexample,
here)orMostcancertypesjustbadluck(here).(Imnoteven
Bill Duval
@Bill_Duval
3 Feb
3 Feb
goingtolooktoseewhattheDailyMailhastosayaboutthis.)But
theseheadlines,andthestories,arejustbollocks.Thework,which
isveryinteresting,showednosuchthing.
Atthispointmycuriositywaspiqued(eggedonmysciencebloggerslike
EdYongwhosimilarlyquestionedthemediacoverage).Wasthisjusta
particularlyegregiouscaseofwidespreadlazyjournalism,ordidthe
storieshaveacommonroot?
Readingtheoriginalpaper,theauthorswereclearlybuildingacasefor
themajorityofthecancerstheystudiedhavingpredominantlyrandom
origins.Thisisparticularlyclearinfigure2inthepaper(seebelow)
wheretheyclustercancersintorandomversusdeterministictypes.But
thelanguageisstillsomewhatcautiousinthepaper.
Expand
Andrew Maynard
@2020science
3 Feb
3 Feb
Utibe Effiong, MD
@UtibeEffiongMD
3 Feb
3 Feb
Figure2fromTomasettiandVogelstein(2015).Cancertypes
areclusteredbythosewherestochastic(replicative)factors
dominate(green),versusthosewhereenvironmentaland
inheritedfactorsaresubstantial(blue).ERStheadjustedrisk
scoreistheproductofthelifetimeriskandthetotalnumberof
stemcelldivisions(log10values).Fromthepaper:The
adjustedERS(aERS)isindicatednexttothenameofeach
cancertype.Rtumors(green)havenegativeaERSandappear
tobemainlyduetostochasticeffectsassociatedwithDNA
replicationofthetissuesstemcells,whereasDtumors(blue)
havepositiveaERS.Importantly,althoughtheaERSwas
calculatedwithoutanyknowledgeoftheinfluenceof
environmentalorinheritedfactors,tumorswithhighaERS
provedtobepreciselythoseknowntobeassociatedwiththese
factors.
TheassociatedpressreleasefromJohnsHopkinsUniversityismore
direct.UndertheheadlineBadLuckofRandomMutationsPlays
PredominantRoleinCancer,StudyShows,thepressreleasestates
By[theauthors]measure,twothirdsofadultcancerincidence
acrosstissuescanbeexplainedprimarilybybadluck,
Atthispoint,thepressreleaseisreferringtotherolethatrandomevents
playindeterminingwhetheracancerwilldevelop.Asthe
releaseclarifies,
Usingstatisticaltheory,thepaircalculatedhowmuchofthevariation
incancerriskcanbeexplainedbythenumberofstemcelldivisions,
whichis0.804squared,or,inpercentageform,approximately65
percent.
Inotherwords,theyconcludethatrandomgeneticmutationbadluck
asstemcellsdivideisanimportantfactorunderlyingthenumbersof
Expand
Tweet to @2020science
SUBSCRIBETOWEBSITE
Pleaseenteryouremailaddresstoreceive
notificationsofnewRiskScienceCenter
postsbyemail.
EmailAddress
Subscribe
LATESTPOSTS
RiskScienceCenter2020Science
Measlesmortalityrates20082011
outbreak,FranceFebruary4,2015
cancercasesobservedandasaresultthelifetimeriskofdeveloping
cancer.
Whatistheriskofdyingifyoucatch
measles?February3,2015
Thereleasegoesontonote:
Isnoveltyinnanomaterialsoverrated
whenitcomestorisk?February2,2015
Finally,theresearchduoclassifiedthetypesofcancerstheystudied
intotwogroups.Theystatisticallycalculatedwhichcancertypeshad
anincidencepredictedbythenumberofstemcelldivisionsand
whichhadhigherincidence.Theyfoundthat22cancertypescould
belargelyexplainedbythebadluckfactorofrandomDNA
mutationsduringcelldivision.Theotherninecancertypeshad
incidenceshigherthanpredictedbybadluckandwerepresumably
duetoacombinationofbadluckplusenvironmentalorinherited
factors.
Thisdirectlymirrorsthefindingspresentedinthepaperthatofthe
cancersstudied,70%werelargelyexplainablebyrandommutations
duringcelldivision.
Comparingthistotheheadlinesabove,themediaarticles,releaseand
paperalignsurprisinglywell.Badluckistheauthorsphrase,andthey
doemphasizethedominanceofrandomgeneticeventsinthemajority
ofcancers,andcancercases.
Inthisrespect,itshardtobetootoughononthemediacoverage
sure,someofthestatsmayhavegotalittletwisted,butthedominant
messageseemstohaveitsrootsinthepaperandtheinstitutional(and
authorsanctioned)pressrelease.
Soisthereaproblemhere,orhavethemediaactuallydonegood,
contrarytoperceptionsfromsomequarters?
Frommyreadingofthepaper,thepressreleaseandthemedia
coverage,thisisntasstraightforwardasitmightseem.Certainly,it
seemsthatmanyreportersmadeanhonestefforttofaithfullyrepresent
whattheauthorsweresaying.Andyet,sciencereportingismorethan
justreportingthefactsitsalsocontextualizingthosefactsinawaythat
isusefultoreadersandsocietymoregenerally.
GoingbacktoAdamJacobspiece,itsworthrepeatinghisconclusion:
Weknowthatlifestyleishugelyimportantnotonlyforcancer,butfor
manyotherdiseasesaswell.Forthemediatoclaimthatlifestyle
isntimportant,basedonamisunderstandingofwhattheresearch
shows,ishighlyirresponsible.
Ifyoutakethestanceashedoesthatenvironmentalandlifestyle
factorsarecriticaltodetermininggoodandbadhealth(andasapublic
healthprofessor,itsastanceIamprofessionallyexpectedtotake),
newsarticlesthatimplywedontneedtoworrysomuchaboutthe
pollutionweemit,thechemicalsweexposepeopletoorthewaywelive
ourlives,canbeseenashighlyirresponsibleunlessbackedupbyrock
solidevidence.Theyopenthedoortoanabdicationofresponsibility
whenitcomestoenvironmentalhealth.Whyspendafortuneon
preventingenvironmentalemissionswhentheydontmatter?Why
undergocripplinglyexpensiveproductsafetytestingifingredientsdont
reallycausecancer?Whysupportinconvenientregulatoryagenciesif
alltheydoiscripplecommercewithoutpreventingcancerandother
diseases?
Thisisavalidfear,backedupbyalonghistoryofenvironmentalhealth
disasters.Anditsafearthatrequiresresearchersandresearch
institutionstotakeatleastsomeresponsibilityforhowtheypitchand
Emergingtechnologiesmustbe
developedresponsiblyJanuary22,2015
WorldEconomicForumhighlightsrisksof
emergingtechnologiesJanuary15,2015
MOREFROM2020SCIENCE
RECENTARTICLES
2020SCIENCEARCHIVE,2014
2020SCIENCEARCHIVE,20072013
promotetheirwork.
Inthecaseofthispaper,itshardtoseeclearevidenceofbadreporting.
Thereisalackofbalanceandcontextualizationthoughthat,itseems,
hasitsrootsintheoriginalpaper.
Thisisnotacriticismofthepaper.Butitsveryeasyforthesignificance
ofresearchthatbeginstochallengethestatusquotobeinappropriately
amplifiedinthemedia.AsInotedinarecentarticleinNature
nanotechnology,
whensurprisingnewinsightsemergeonpossiblematerialhealth
risks,wheredoestheresponsibilitylieforensuringthatnew
researchisconductedonmaterialsafety,withoutthisresearch
influencingconsumersandregulatorsbeforethereisplausible
justificationforaction?Ortoputitmoresuccinctly,howcanwe
encourageexploratoryriskresearchwithoutitprematurelyimpacting
consumerandregulatorydecisions?
Thisreferstoresearchonengineerednanomaterials,butthepointis
justasrelevanthere:itsextremelyeasyforexploratoryresearchtotake
ontheauraofauthoritative,actionableknowledgethroughthelensof
themedia.
Sowheredoesresponsibilitytotempersuchamplificationlie?Clearly
thereneedstoberesponsiblereportingateverypointinthe
communicationchain.Butbytheverynatureofamplification,careis
neededatthesourceofastorytohelpensurethatthefinalreportingis
bothaccurateandresponsible(anissueIlookatmorecloselyhere)
Inthiscase,itwasperhapsinevitablethatresearchindicating
environmentalfactorsmaynotbeasimportantaspreviouslythoughtin
causingcancerwouldleadtojustbadluckheadlines.Butthose
headlinesdrawexplicitlyonthelanguageusedinthepaperandthe
pressrelease.
Wouldthemediacoveragehavebeendifferentiftheworkwaspitched
differently?ItshardtotellbutinthisinstanceIdcertainlybehesitant
toputalltheblameonbadjournalism.
Paper:Variationincancerriskamongtissuescanbeexplainedbythe
numberofstemcelldivisions(2015)
CristianTomasettiandBertVogelstein.Science,Vol.347no.6217pp.
7881DOI:10.1126/science.126082
UpdatedJanuary4toincludeFigure2fromTomasettiandVogelstein
(2015)
Sharethispost:
onTwitter
onFacebook
RelatedPosts:
Researchers
shouldtakemore
responsibilityfor
exaggerationin
pressreleases
DoesBadLuck
CauseMost
Cancersin
Nigeria?
Buildingtrust
between
academicsand
journalists
onGoogle+
38comments Taggedwith:badluck,Cancer,Environment,Media,
reporting in2020Science,Chemicals,EnvironmentalHealth
Comments(38)
January2,2015at7:19pm /
Timberati
Thanks,Andrew.ThereportIsawintheDailybeastthismorningsaidtheauthorshada
largecaveatforsmokinganditslinktolungcancer.
So,recognizingthisissomethingofaoneoff,theauthorsseemtosaythatwhile
environmentalfactorshaveanaffect,thesemaybeonlyonethirdoftherisk?
AndrewMaynard
January2,2015at8:25pm /
Yestheyclearlysaythatinsomecasesenvironmentalfactorsareimportantthesearethe
cancerswheretheirbadluckpredictionsdonthold.
DavidColquhoun
January3,2015at5:31am /
Ifearthattheinternetattackdogswentforthewrongvictiminthiscase.Thepaperadds
weighttosimilarestimatesforthecontributionofchancethathavebeenaroundforyears,
butwhichtheauthorsofalltheattacksseemtobeunaware.PleasereadGeorgeDavey
SmithsexcellentJohnSnowlectureforagoodsummary.
Imbaffledbytheindignationengenderedbysuggestionthatchanceplaysabigpartin
yourfate.Lifeisstochastic,toquitealargeextent.Ontwitter,AliceRobertsmadean
interestinganalogy.
ProfAliceRoberts@DrAliceRoberts
@david_colquhounImstruckbysimilarityinresistancetoacceptingroleofchanceinour
individuallives&healthandinevolution
Itsoddthatthesceptics,inthiscase,arebehavingabitlikecreationists,orthosewho
believethatitsyourownfaultifyougetill.
AndrewMaynard
January3,2015at5:56am /
ThanksforthecommentsDavidamincludingthelinktoGeorgeDaveySmithspaper:
http://www.dcscience.net/DaveySmith2011.pdf
Beyondquestionsofblamehere,therearetwodeeplyrootednarrativesthathavebeen
touchedinthisdialogue:
1.Badcompanies,badpeopleandbadactionscausecancerand
2.Themediacynicallysensationalizeandmisreportscience
Isuspectthat,becauseofthis,thecoveragehasraisedirebecauseitseemstochallenge#1
andseemstosupport#2.Andwhatwegetasaresultisadiscussionaboutdogmas,not
data.
DavidColquhoun
January3,2015at6:14am /
Themediacynicallysensationalizeandmisreportscience
WhilenottryingtoexoneratetheDailyMailfrommisreportingscience,Ifearthatthetruth
isworsethanthat.Inmanycases,itisthepressreleasefromthejournal,orfromthe
universityPRdepartmentthatsensationalisesthescience(andsincetheauthorswill
normallyapprovethesereleases,theymustacceptsomeoftheblame).Ihavegiven
severalexamplese.g.at
http://www.dcscience.net/2014/11/02/twomorecasesofhypeinglamourjournals
magnetscocoaandmemory/
Inthisparticularcase,though,Imontheotherside.IwasastonishedwhenAdam
JacobsmadetheassertionWeknowthatlifestyleishugelyimportantnotonlyfor
cancerbecausethatispreciselywhatwedontknow(andIwaspleasedtogetthe
supportoftheoncologistandskeptic,DavidGorski,onthat).Inordertojustifythisclaim,
hechoseoneofthepapersthatIdpreviouslysingledoutasbeingoneofthemost
ghastlyhypeddietpapersIdencountered.Seethediscussionat
http://www.statsguy.co.uk/aretwothirdsofcancersreallyduetobadluck/
michaelkenward
January3,2015at11:43am /
ThankyouDavidColquhounforcommentingfromthesanersideofthisfeedingfrenzy.
ThefirstattackonthemediathatIsawcamefromsomeonewhodidnotevenbothertotell
theirreadersthatmuchofthehypeandoverstatementtheycomplainedofinthemedia
coverageofthispaperwasinthepressreleasethatheraldedthepublicationinthejournal
Science,itselfapowerfulPRmachine.Asyousaid,itishighlyunlikelythatthispressrelease
gotoutwithoutresearcherclearance.
EventheabstractinSciencecontainedsomeofthecrimesagainsthumanitythatsoupset
therabidhordes.No,theevilscribblersdidnotsuddenlyconjureupthebadluckbit.
Itisinterestingthatmanyofthescientificexpertswhoweighedinfailedtodowhatthey
demandofjournalists,digabitdeeperandfindtheevidencetosupportyourstory.Iwonder
howmanyofthecriticsdidwhatIdidwhenafirstsawtheircomplaints,whichwastorushoff
tothesourceofthestorytoseewhatithadsaid.Thatimmediatelytoldmethatmanyflawsin
thereportingowedmoretothesourcesthantothejournalists.
Butwhybothertodiluteyourbilewithfactswhenitismuchmoreconvenienttohammer
awaywiththesametiredoldmediadoesntgetscienceline?Whynotbehavejustlikethe
rightlyloathedand,assomeoneelsehassaid,possiblycarcinogenic,DailyMail,andwrite
somethingthatfitsyourownagendaratherthanthefacts?
Icantbebotheredtoploughthroughallthetoshoutthereonthisone,soIhavenotfound
outifthereareanycommentsaboutthepeerreviewofthepaper,inparticular,ofthe
statisticalanalysis.Givendodgystatisticsisuptherewithplagiarismandcookedupdata
whenitcomestoretractedpapersIjustmadeupthatstatisticitisabitrichtocriticise
journalists,assomeofthecommentshave,fornotbeingexpertsinstatistics.
Therearemanystoriesouttherewherejournalistsdogetthingswrong.Byconstantly
gunningforstoriesthatowemuchtothetenoroftheoriginalmaterial,thetwitterlooniesfall
intothecryingwolfcamp.
Now,hadtheycriticisedthemediaforchurnalism,parrotinggarbagefedtothembyaPR
machine,Imighthavejoinedinthefunandgames.
January3,2015at10:24am /
Timberati
Iwontbeabletosaythisquiteright,statistically,butthisrandomnessisthen(partof)the
reasonwhycancersshowuplaterinlife.Yes?Morethrowsofthedice,sotospeak.
AndrewMaynard
January3,2015at10:26am /
Thiswouldmakesenseiftheprobabilityofgeneticmutationscorrelateswithcelldivisions
themoredivisioncycles,thegreaterthecumulativechanceofaharmfulmutationoccurring
KatherineK.Moore
January3,2015at2:47pm /
whatIfindinterestingishowpeoplerespondtocancernews,asthoughthatistheONLY
badnewsthatoccursinhealthcare?Manypeople,includingmanymanyhealthcare
providersconsidercancertojustbetheworst,butreallymostchronicdegenerative
diseasesareprettyawfulandmostofthemappeartobeduetorandomluckaswellI
supposeitcomesdowntowewillalldieofsomething.
KatherineK.Moore
January3,2015at2:48pm /
butnoonewantstobelievethat.
BradleyJ.Fikes
January3,2015at3:59pm /
HiAndrew,
Imoneofthereporterswhowroteaboutthestory.Thankyouforanevenhandedlookat
thestudy,thepressrelease,andmediareports.OneobservationIdaddisthatthe
impendingNewYearsholidayprobablymadeithardtogetindependentevaluations.(It
certainlydidinmycase,althoughIeventuallysucceeded).
AdamJacobsmadeamisleadingstatementabouttherandommutationriskhypothesis
aspresentedinthestudy:
Theproblemisthatitappliesonlytoexplainingthevariationincancerriskfromone
tissuetoanother.Ittellsusnothingabouthowmuchoftheriskwithinagiventissueis
duetomodifiablefactors.Youcouldpotentiallyseeexactlythesameresultswhether
eachspecifictypeofcancerstruckcompletelyatrandomorwhethereachspecifictype
werehugelyinfluencedbyenvironmentalriskfactors.
Buttheauthorsaddressedthispoint,throughtheERSmethodyouquotedabove.Maybe
theERSmethodisflawed,butJacobsblogpostdoesntevenacknowledgeitsexistence,
letaloneattempttorefuteit.
Themediareportsusuallystressedthatevenaonethirdriskfromenvironmentalfactors
isstillsignificant.SoJacobsclosingline:Forthemediatoclaimthatlifestyleisnt
important,basedonamisunderstandingofwhattheresearchshows,ishighly
irresponsible,issimplyfalse.EvenJacobslinktotheIndependentarticleonthestudy
beliesthatstatement.
Best,
Bradley
DavidColquhoun
January3,2015at7:27pm /
Thankstoyou,andtoMichaelKenwardfordefusingsomeofthehysteria.
Ihaventseenyourreport,butitsoundsfromyourcommentthatyouvedelveddeeperthan
manyofthecritics.
Imquitebaffledaboutwhythereshouldbesuchastrongreactionagainsttheideathat
chanceplaysasubstantialroleinyourfate.That,afterall,ishowevolutionworks.Andthe
ideawasformulatedquiteclearlybynoneotherthanRichardPetoin1977.
BradleyJ.Fikes
January3,2015at8:10pm /
Ithinkthereactionstemsfromafearthatthepublicwillbehaveirresponsiblyiftold
chanceplaysapredominantroleincancer.Whilethatmayormaynotbetrue,itsa
separateissuethanthestudysscientificvalidity.Justbecauseascientist
personallydislikeshowastudymaybeinterpretedisnotanargumentagainstits
accuracy.
ThestudyitselfincludesstatementslikeThus,thestochasticeffectsofDNA
replicationappeartobethemajorcontributortocancerinhumans.Thatdoesnt
say2/3ofallcancerscomefromrandommutation,ofcourse.Idliketoseethat
questionspecificallytackled,usingthestudydata,togettheproportionmore
preciselyquantified.Whilethepressreleasedidgivethe2/3numberasapplying
toallcancers,Irecognizethatsnoexcuse.
PZMyersgaveathoughtfullookathowthestudycanbeusedtoimprovecancer
preventionandcare:j.mp/pzmyerscancer
AndrewMaynard
January4,2015at3:35pm /
ThanksBradleyfrommyexperienceitshardtogettimelyacademicinput/commentatthe
bestoftimescantimaginetheadditionalchallengesoftryingoveraholidayperiod!
MichaelKenward
January4,2015at8:17pm /
Indeed.Notrelatedtothisparticularsaga,Ihaveknownresearcherstoputouta
pressreleaseandthentodisappearforalongvacationwithoutleavingcontact
details.Dothatandyouhavenogroundstocomplainaboutsloppycoverage.
Inoticedthatoneofthemorethoroughjournalisticarticlesonthepaper
appearedinScienceitself.Iassumethatthewriterhadearlieraccesstothepaper
thanlessermortals.
Pingback:Cancer:justbadluck?|AMSNewcastle
January3,2015at10:01pm /
Jy
Makesmewonderiftheyeverevaluatedstochasticratesofcellmutationastheresponse
variableandtheenvironmentalvariablesasthecovariatesintheirregression.
Inother
words,whatpercentofthislabelledbadluckisexplainedbyenvironmentalvariables?
Aretheseseeminglyrandommutationsperhapsdependent,toahighextent,on
environmentalvariables?
LDP
January5,2015at1:26am /
Iwaswonderingmuchthesamething.Dotheydeterminerandomnessvsenvironmental
factorsthroughcellularisolationfromexposurestoexternalradicalsandsoon?Howdoes
thiswork?
DavidColquhoun
January4,2015at5:14am /
@BradleyJ.Fikes
ThanksverymuchfordrawingmyattentiontoPZMyersblogonthistopic.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/01/03/cancerbadgenesorbadluck/
ItsthebestpieceIvereadonthetopic.
VanyaLoroch
January4,2015at7:08am /
IsntoneoftheunderlyingproblemsintheinterpretationoftheresultsofVogelsteinand
Tomasettisworktheverydefinitionofcancer?Foramedicaldoctor,cancermeans
metastaticdisease(oratleastdiseasethathasahighprobabilityofbecoming
metastatic).Thisisaclinical,reductionistdefinition.Buttoaddressthequestionofthe
originsofcancer,oneneedstobroadenthisdefinitiontobiology.Andthisisacompletely
differentstory,muchmorefuzzy,muchmorecomplexandusuallyaverylongone.Just
thinkaboutinsitutumors,alltheundiagnosedcancers,spontaneousremissions,etc.
VogelsteinandTomasettionlylookedatclinicallydiagnosedneoplasms,thevisibletipof
theplasmsiceberg.Butthecausesofcancerareburiedinthehugeinvisiblepart.And
thereisonethingweknowforsurenow:thepredominantprotectiveroleplayedbythe
immunesystem(thespectacularresultsobtainedbynontargetedimmunotherapies
illustratethiswell).Wealsoknowthatthestateoftheimmunesystemdependsstrongly
onenvironmentalandbehavioralfactors.
Ifso,isntthestatusoftheimmunesystemTHEMAJORlinkbetweenenvironmentand
behaviorandtheriskofcancer?
VogelsteinandTomasettisworkdidnotlookatanyofthis.ThisisOK,Iguessbecause
thescopeofthepaperisquitelimited.Butthemessagerelayedbythemediaiswrong
anddangeroussinceitdevaluespreventionandhealthpromotion.
Itslikesayingthatthemoretimesanairplanetakesoffandlands,thehighertheriskof
crashing.Andtoremainaliveweneedtofly,Ofcourseitstrue.Butitsaverypartial
view,becausewhatpreventsairplanecrashesareALSOalltheothersmalleraccidents
thatbuilduptoairdisasters.VogelsteinandTomasettisworkonlylookedatcrash
statistics.
Thanksforreadingmylongcomment.
JG
January6,2015at2:34am /
Oneshallnotignoreabouttheinfluenceofgrantsprovidersandlackofdatavalidation
withinthecashstrappedresearchcommunities.Weshouldnotblamethemediafor
doingwhatauniversitylikeJ.H.shouldnothavedone,i.e.,throwawaytheprinciplesof
furtherscientificdiscussionforthesakeofPR.Asithashappenedinmanycasesinthe
past,thesamePRmaycomebacktothemaseggsonthefaceoftheirreputation.
Cancerhasmanyfaces,andevenastoday,noonecansaysimplybecauseithappensin
certainpartsofbodythatisnecessarythesamethingfurtherawayfromevenbeinga
type.
Aretheauthorssurethestatistical/mathematicalmodelstheyhaveusedisthefinal
verdictwithinthescientificcommunitiesbothaliveandinthefuture[ifyes,whytheykeep
printingnewtextswithnoendtothem?]Or,arethecellbiologistsjobisdoneby
simplifyingallkindsofcelldivisionsunderasinglebiologicalsystem?
Onethingatruescientistmustknowisinanyanalysis,thenullhypothesisprovidesno
guarantythatherorhisresultsareright!Andthatisevenifthevalidityofdataarekosher.
Andbytheway,lifeitselfisarandomphenomenawithinarandommedium,influenced
byrandomambientthatisconstantlyinfusedbyrandomenvironmentalfactorscoming
fromrandomdirections.Itistheheightofstupiditytotryexplainrandombyadefinite
number.
Pingback:Links1/6/15|MiketheMadBiologist
Pingback:CancerandBadluck:BadScienceand/orBadJournalismand/oruncriticalacceptance|
StealthRacism
FrankSchauder
January7,2015at2:56pm /
Thakyouforthecommentsonthepaperandtheresultingmediaheadlines.Butevenif
2/3oftheexamined31cancertypesseemtodependonrandom(genetic)effectsa
statementsuchasTwoThirdsofCancerCasesAreSimplyDowntoBadLuckissimply
wrongandclearlymisleading.Theincidenceofeachcancerhastobeetakenin
consideration(breast,colon,prostatecancerisbefarmorefrequentthanduodenum
cancer).
Pingback:RiskScienceCenterBadluckcausesmostcancers?Nigeriansknowthat!
Steve
January11,2015at6:01pm /
Whatdotheauthorssayabouttheroleoftheimmunesystemininfluencingwhethera
cancerousmutation,onceithasoccurred,developsintoalifethreateningtumor?After
all,oneofthefunctionsoftheimmunesystemistodestroycancerouscellsbeforethey
growintolargetumors.Andmuchresearchhasshownthatenvironment,lifestyle,and
geneticshaveabigeffectontheefficacyoftheimmunesystem.Sowhileitmightbethe
casethatmanycancercellsarecreatedbychance,surelyhealthbehaviors,the
environment,andgeneticsstillhaveanimportantrole,mediatedthroughtheimmune
system,indetermininghowdeadlythosecancersbecome.Ifthatsright,thenthe
headline2/3ofcancersarerandomshouldnotbeinterpretedas2/3oflifethreatening
cancersarerandom.Rathertheheadlineshouldbe2/3ofcancerousmutationsdevelop
bychance.
Paulcatherall
January12,2015at6:33pm /
WellsaidSteve,with60trillioncellstherearealwayscellsnotformingcorrectly.The
progressionfromatransformedcelltoafullblowntumourcellisnotinstant.Agenetic
predispositiontoacancercanbeviewedasjuststartingfurtheralongthelineof
transformation.Theimmunesystemincludestransformedcellsselfdestructingorbeing
destroyedbyneighbouringcells.Thissignallingisimportanttounderstandandis
influencedbyenvironmentalfactors.Oneimportantexampleistheoldesthormone
systemofthebodycalledEicosanoids,whichisthesignallinggatewaytotheimmune
system.HarvardmedicalschoolquoteEicosanoidsmayrepresentamissinglink
betweeninflammationandcancerandthuscouldserveastherapeutictarget(s)for
inhibitingtumorgrowth.OneformofEicosanoidiscalledResolvinsandthesecanonly
bemadefrom20carbon(longchain)omega3andtheseendtheinflammatorycycle.
Thismechanismisadverselyimpactedbyexcessiveomega6,transfats,andhighinsulin
levelswhichcanbecontrolled.
Pingback:ActwithLoveBlog|ResearchWorthWatching:BadLuckandStemCells
DavidHammond
January14,2015at3:52pm /
Idontgethowtheauthoristryingtosaythatthepressmisrepresentedtheauthors?
TheyCLEARLYstatedthatbadluckisalargefactor.Sohowisreportingthisback
suchacrime?Itswhattheysaidthemselves!
Furthermore,whattheauthorofthisarticlemissesisthattheconclusionofthisstudyisa
completejoke.Itispurescientificlazinesstosaythattwothirdsofcancerarecausedby
badluck.WhydontwetackonthewrathofGodwhilewereatit?Basically,the
scientistshavehitawallwheretheycannolongerexplainsomething.Yetunlikeevery
legitimatescientistinhistorywheretheysimplyadmittheydontknowandthen
continueresearchingthesepeopleinsteadsaythattheydohavetheanswerand
itsduetobadluck.
Sowhatexactlyisthescientificdefinitionofbadluck?
AndhowonEarthisbadlucknowconsideredtobealegitimate,measurablescientific
influence?Didtheyeverconsiderthatperhapsemotionalwellbeingmayprovidekey
links?
Thisissobeyondabsurdyouhonestlycouldntmakeitup.Wakeuppeople.Yourebeing
duped.
DavidColquhoun
January14,2015at6:37pm /
Imafraidthatyouhavenocomprehensionatallofrandomprocesses(inthiscaserandom
errorsinDNAreplication).Atthelevelofsinglemolecules,everythingisrandom.Ithink
perhapsyoushouldreadupaboutstochasticprocessesbeforegettingsoindignant.
DavidHammond
January15,2015at1:32pm /
Nothingisrandominthisuniverse.Everythingisbasedoncauseandeffect,
whetherwehappentounderstandityetornot.Electrons,forexample,actas
particleswhenobservedwithacamera.However,whennoequipmentobserves
theelectrons,theyactaswavesandparticlessimultaneously.Soevensimple
observationchangesthings.Butwhowouldknowthisifithadntbeendetermined
throughscience?Ifithadntbeen,someonewouldcomealongandcallitrandom
luck,simplybecausetheydontknow.Itisonethingtosaythatyoudont
understandacausetoaneffect,andquiteanothertosaythatyoudoknow,and
thatisbecauseofluck.Imsorry,butthatsjustabsurd.ThatisNOTscience.
Factoringinluck,somethingthathasnoscientificdefinitionwhatsoever,is
absolutelyirresponsibleatbest,andfraudulentatworst.Everythingisbasedon
causeandeffect,whetherwehappentounderstandityetornot.
DavidColquhoun
January15,2015at6:13pm /
Notagoodexample.Everyindividualelectronmovesrandomly.I
suggestsomereadingaboutBrownianmotion,oraboutstatistical
mechanics.
Thingslooksmoothonlywhenaveragedoverlargenumbersofparticles.
mars
January17,2015at3:53am /
David,
Itdependswhatmeaningisgiventorandom.Ifyoumean,not
predictable,thensure,manyphysicalprocessesaredeeply
random.Butthatkindofrandomnessisanepistemicmatter,
ratherthananontologicalone.Inthatsenserandomnessisa
contingentfactaboutourknowledge(and,beyondthat,our
cognitivelimitations),ratherthanafactaboutnatureingeneral.
Butifbyrandomyoumeannotcaused,thenIthinkthe
discussionmovesontoamorephilosophicalterrainGod
doesntplaydice,thatkindofthinginwhichwewouldhaveto
getsomeaccountofwhatwemeanbycausation.Isuspectthe
conceptofrandomnessthatMr.Hammondisobjectingtoisthe
ontologicaloneratherthantheepistemicone.ButIalsosuspect
thatwhattheauthorsmeanbyrandomisnotnotcausedbut
notpredictableinawaythatcouldleadtomeaningful
intervention.
Mars
Pingback:BadLuckandStemCells|UltraDrift
Pingback:BadLuckandStemCells|PinoriaNews
Pingback:BadLuckandStemCells|SkyMeteor
Pingback:BadLuckandStemCells|OmahaSunTimes
Pingback:BadLuckandStemCellsMyWeightLossBlog|MyWeightLossBlog
1415WashingtonHeights,Ann
Arbor48108,Tel:7346153050,
Emailriskscience@umich.edu
2013RegentsoftheUniversityofMichigan|SchoolofPublicHealth
Tosearchtypeandhitenter