Download pdf - Risk Science Center Bad Luck and Cancer - Did the Media Get It Wrong_ - Risk Science Center

Home About Initiatives Education News&Posts Blogs Subscribe

Badluckandcancerdidthemediagetitwrong?

January2,2015

AndrewMaynard

Thechancesarethat,ifyoufollownewsarticlesaboutcancer,youllhavecomeacrossheadlineslikeMostCancersCausedByBadLuck(TheDailyBeast)orTwothirdsofcancersareduetobadluck,studyfinds(CBSNews).ThestorybasedonresearchoutofJohnsHopkinsUniversityhasgrabbedwidespreadmediaattention.Butitsalsoraisedtheireofsciencecommunicatorswhothinkthattheheadlinesandstoriesare,inthewordsofacoupleofwriters,justbollocks.

Withallthecoverageofthepaper,andthesubsequentcoverageofthecoverage,Iwasinterestedinjusthowoffbasethenewsarticleswere,andtowhatextentthiswasdowntolazyreporting.

ThepaperinquestionisVariationincancerriskamongtissuescanbeexplainedbythenumberofstemcelldivisionsbyCristianTomasettiandBertVogelstein,publishedthismonthinthejournalScience.Attheheartofthepapertheauthorslookathowstemcelldivisionsindifferenttissuescorrelatewithlifetimeriskofdevelopingcancerinthosetissues.Thestudyshowsaclearcorrelationwiththecancertypesconsideredthefasterthestemcellsdivideinaparticulartissue,thegreaterthechanceofdevelopingcancerinthattissue.

Thetworesearchersthenteaseoutthedegreethattheythinkrandomgeneticmutations,asopposedtoenvironmentalandlifestylefactors,influencecancerrisk.Theyconcludethat,outof31cancertypesconsidered,22wereprimarilyassociatedwithrandomgeneticmutations(theycalledtheseRtumorstheRstandingforrandom),andninewereassociatedwithenvironmentalfactorsontopoftheserandommutations(deterministictumors,orDtumors).

Intheauthorswords,

WerefertotumorswithrelativelylowERS[extrariskscore]asRtumors(RforreplicativegreenclusterinFig.2)becausestochasticfactors,presumablyrelatedtoerrorsduringDNAreplication,moststronglyappeartoaffecttheirrisk.

Inotherwords,outofthe31cancertypesstudied,theauthorsanalysisshowedthat70%ofthemjustovertwothirdswerepredominantly

2020SCIENCEABOUTAndrewMaynardisaProfessorofEnvironmentalHealthSciencesattheUniversityofMichigan,anddirectstheUMRiskScienceCenter.Hisinterestsfocusoneffectivesciencecommunicationtheresponsibledevelopmentanduseofemergingtechnologiesmostnotablynanotechnologyandsyntheticbiologyandhowunderstandingriskcanhelpinformsmartdecisions.

AswellaswritingaregularcolumnforthejournalNatureNanotechnology,Andrewpostsregularlyonhispersonalblog"2020Science",[email protected](andhopefullyentertaining)educationalvideosonunderstandinghealthrisksontheYouTubechannelRiskBites

CONNECTTWITTER:@2020science

YOUTUBE:RiskBites

FACEBOOK:2020Science

LINKEDIN:ANDREWMAYNARD

EMAIL:[email protected]

FOLLOWONTWITTER

determinedbyrandommutationsandnotenvironmentalfactorswhattheauthorsterminthepaperasbadluck.

Theinferencethatmanycancersandevencancertypescannoteasilybepreventedbyreducingenvironmentalexposuresorchanginglifestyles,provedtobeamediamagnet.Headlinesresultedalongthelinesof

CancerIsMoreBadLuckThanBadBehavior,StudySays(Bloomberg)

TwoThirdsofCancerCasesAreSimplyDowntoBadLuck(Gizmodo)

Twothirdsofadultcancerslargelydowntobadluckratherthangenes(TheGuardian)

Mostcancertypesjustbadluck'(BBCNews)

Mostcancercasesduetobadluck'(DailyMail)

Andsomecommentatorswerentamused.

MichaelHeadforinstancetweeted

No, media, twothirds of #cancers are not 'due to bad luck'. Crap reporting. Again. statsguy.co.uk/aretwothirds9:50 AM 2 Jan 2015

Michael Head @michaelghead

Follow

132 RETWEETS 44 FAVORITES

Inresponsetomanyoftheheadlinesandarticles,AdamJacobs(linkedtointhetweetabove)wroteonhisblogTheStatsGuy

ApaperpublishedinSciencehasbeenwidelyreportedinthemediatoday.Accordingtomediareports,suchasthisone,thepapershowedthattwothirdsofcancersaresimplyduetobadluck,andonlyonethirdareduetoenvironmental,lifestyle,orgeneticriskfactors.

Thepapershowsnosuchthing,ofcourse.

concludingwith

Weknowthatlifestyleishugelyimportantnotonlyforcancer,butformanyotherdiseasesaswell.Forthemediatoclaimthatlifestyleisntimportant,basedonamisunderstandingofwhattheresearchshows,ishighlyirresponsible.

OveratTheGuardian,themediaquestioningwastakenupbyBobOHaraandGrrlScientistundertheheadlineBadluck,badjournalismandcancerrates.Notpullingtheirpunches,theywrote:

Thebigscience/healthnewsstorythisweekisaboutcancerrates,withnewsoutletssplashingheadlineslikeTwothirdsofadultcancerslargelydowntobadluckratherthangenes(forexample,here)orMostcancertypesjustbadluck(here).(Imnoteven

How to talk to an antivaxxer grist.org/politics/howt via @grist

Andrew Maynard @2020science

Show Summary

How likely are you to die if you get measles? Two analyses that challenge accepted wisdom: riskscience.umich.edu/riskdyingcat riskscience.umich.edu/measlesmortal


New post: Estimating the measles mortality rate from the 20082011 outbreak in France riskscience.umich.edu/measlesmortal pic.twitter.com/v6YPQCFHGy


Expand

Gt Paracelsus bit RT @voxdotcom: What these 5 scientific geniuses believed might surprise you bit.ly/1HVmqLl pic.twitter.com/82TnWH7DwU


Thought I'd watch 30 seconds, watched 15 minutes. RT @UtibeEffiongMD: My Story for Vaccines. youtu.be/uf34pQCNEQ

Retweeted by Andrew Maynard

Bill Duval @Bill_Duval

Show Media

Is novelty overrated re Nanomaterials & health risk Yes says @2020science riskscience.umich.edu/noveltynanoma pic.twitter.com/QefQV9IDst


Hilary Sutcliffe @hilarysutcliffe

1h

6h

6h

3 Feb

3 Feb

3 Feb

Tweets Follow

goingtolooktoseewhattheDailyMailhastosayaboutthis.)Buttheseheadlines,andthestories,arejustbollocks.Thework,whichisveryinteresting,showednosuchthing.

Atthispointmycuriositywaspiqued(eggedonmysciencebloggerslikeEdYongwhosimilarlyquestionedthemediacoverage).Wasthisjustaparticularlyegregiouscaseofwidespreadlazyjournalism,ordidthestorieshaveacommonroot?

Readingtheoriginalpaper,theauthorswereclearlybuildingacaseforthemajorityofthecancerstheystudiedhavingpredominantlyrandomorigins.Thisisparticularlyclearinfigure2inthepaper(seebelow)wheretheyclustercancersintorandomversusdeterministictypes.Butthelanguageisstillsomewhatcautiousinthepaper.

Figure2fromTomasettiandVogelstein(2015).Cancertypesareclusteredbythosewherestochastic(replicative)factorsdominate(green),versusthosewhereenvironmentaland

inheritedfactorsaresubstantial(blue).ERStheadjustedriskscoreistheproductofthelifetimeriskandthetotalnumberof

stemcelldivisions(log10values).Fromthepaper:TheadjustedERS(aERS)isindicatednexttothenameofeach

cancertype.Rtumors(green)havenegativeaERSandappeartobemainlyduetostochasticeffectsassociatedwithDNA

replicationofthetissuesstemcells,whereasDtumors(blue)havepositiveaERS.Importantly,althoughtheaERSwas

calculatedwithoutanyknowledgeoftheinfluenceofenvironmentalorinheritedfactors,tumorswithhighaERS

provedtobepreciselythoseknowntobeassociatedwiththesefactors.

TheassociatedpressreleasefromJohnsHopkinsUniversityismoredirect.UndertheheadlineBadLuckofRandomMutationsPlaysPredominantRoleinCancer,StudyShows,thepressreleasestates

By[theauthors]measure,twothirdsofadultcancerincidenceacrosstissuescanbeexplainedprimarilybybadluck,

Atthispoint,thepressreleaseisreferringtotherolethatrandomeventsplayindeterminingwhetheracancerwilldevelop.Asthereleaseclarifies,

Usingstatisticaltheory,thepaircalculatedhowmuchofthevariationincancerriskcanbeexplainedbythenumberofstemcelldivisions,whichis0.804squared,or,inpercentageform,approximately65percent.

Inotherwords,theyconcludethatrandomgeneticmutationbadluckasstemcellsdivideisanimportantfactorunderlyingthenumbersof

Expand

ICYMI: what's the risk of dying if you catch measles? riskscience.umich.edu/riskdyingcat


Expand

Public transport's great except when it's not! Just realized taking the bus this evening's going to an hour & three quarters to get home!


My Story for Vaccines. youtu.be/uf34pQCNEQ #VaccinateYourKids #vaccineswork #GrandmothersKnowBest #AntiVaxxerLogic #MeaslesOutbreak #RWB


Utibe Effiong, MD @UtibeEffiongMD

Show Media

Don't let what happened to HPV #vaccine happen again. It's on us. tinyurl.com/olzd7jw pic.twitter.com/aCm26ZortD


Cultural Cognition @cult_cognition

Expand

3 Feb

3 Feb

3 Feb

3 Feb

Tweet to @2020science

SUBSCRIBETOWEBSITE

PleaseenteryouremailaddresstoreceivenotificationsofnewRiskScienceCenterpostsbyemail.

EmailAddress

Subscribe

LATESTPOSTS

RiskScienceCenter2020Science

Measlesmortalityrates20082011outbreak,FranceFebruary4,2015

cancercasesobservedandasaresultthelifetimeriskofdevelopingcancer.

Thereleasegoesontonote:

Finally,theresearchduoclassifiedthetypesofcancerstheystudiedintotwogroups.Theystatisticallycalculatedwhichcancertypeshadanincidencepredictedbythenumberofstemcelldivisionsandwhichhadhigherincidence.Theyfoundthat22cancertypescouldbelargelyexplainedbythebadluckfactorofrandomDNAmutationsduringcelldivision.Theotherninecancertypeshadincidenceshigherthanpredictedbybadluckandwerepresumablyduetoacombinationofbadluckplusenvironmentalorinheritedfactors.

Thisdirectlymirrorsthefindingspresentedinthepaperthatofthecancersstudied,70%werelargelyexplainablebyrandommutationsduringcelldivision.

Comparingthistotheheadlinesabove,themediaarticles,releaseandpaperalignsurprisinglywell.Badluckistheauthorsphrase,andtheydoemphasizethedominanceofrandomgeneticeventsinthemajorityofcancers,andcancercases.

Inthisrespect,itshardtobetootoughononthemediacoveragesure,someofthestatsmayhavegotalittletwisted,butthedominantmessageseemstohaveitsrootsinthepaperandtheinstitutional(andauthorsanctioned)pressrelease.

Soisthereaproblemhere,orhavethemediaactuallydonegood,contrarytoperceptionsfromsomequarters?

Frommyreadingofthepaper,thepressreleaseandthemediacoverage,thisisntasstraightforwardasitmightseem.Certainly,itseemsthatmanyreportersmadeanhonestefforttofaithfullyrepresentwhattheauthorsweresaying.Andyet,sciencereportingismorethanjustreportingthefactsitsalsocontextualizingthosefactsinawaythatisusefultoreadersandsocietymoregenerally.

GoingbacktoAdamJacobspiece,itsworthrepeatinghisconclusion:

Weknowthatlifestyleishugelyimportantnotonlyforcancer,butformanyotherdiseasesaswell.Forthemediatoclaimthatlifestyleisntimportant,basedonamisunderstandingofwhattheresearchshows,ishighlyirresponsible.

Ifyoutakethestanceashedoesthatenvironmentalandlifestylefactorsarecriticaltodetermininggoodandbadhealth(andasapublichealthprofessor,itsastanceIamprofessionallyexpectedtotake),newsarticlesthatimplywedontneedtoworrysomuchaboutthepollutionweemit,thechemicalsweexposepeopletoorthewayweliveourlives,canbeseenashighlyirresponsibleunlessbackedupbyrocksolidevidence.Theyopenthedoortoanabdicationofresponsibilitywhenitcomestoenvironmentalhealth.Whyspendafortuneonpreventingenvironmentalemissionswhentheydontmatter?Whyundergocripplinglyexpensiveproductsafetytestingifingredientsdontreallycausecancer?Whysupportinconvenientregulatoryagenciesifalltheydoiscripplecommercewithoutpreventingcancerandotherdiseases?

Thisisavalidfear,backedupbyalonghistoryofenvironmentalhealthdisasters.Anditsafearthatrequiresresearchersandresearchinstitutionstotakeatleastsomeresponsibilityforhowtheypitchand

Whatistheriskofdyingifyoucatchmeasles?February3,2015

Isnoveltyinnanomaterialsoverratedwhenitcomestorisk?February2,2015

EmergingtechnologiesmustbedevelopedresponsiblyJanuary22,2015

WorldEconomicForumhighlightsrisksofemergingtechnologiesJanuary15,2015

MOREFROM2020SCIENCERECENTARTICLES

2020SCIENCEARCHIVE,2014

2020SCIENCEARCHIVE,20072013

promotetheirwork.

Inthecaseofthispaper,itshardtoseeclearevidenceofbadreporting.Thereisalackofbalanceandcontextualizationthoughthat,itseems,hasitsrootsintheoriginalpaper.

Thisisnotacriticismofthepaper.Butitsveryeasyforthesignificanceofresearchthatbeginstochallengethestatusquotobeinappropriatelyamplifiedinthemedia.AsInotedinarecentarticleinNaturenanotechnology,

whensurprisingnewinsightsemergeonpossiblematerialhealthrisks,wheredoestheresponsibilitylieforensuringthatnewresearchisconductedonmaterialsafety,withoutthisresearchinfluencingconsumersandregulatorsbeforethereisplausiblejustificationforaction?Ortoputitmoresuccinctly,howcanweencourageexploratoryriskresearchwithoutitprematurelyimpactingconsumerandregulatorydecisions?

Thisreferstoresearchonengineerednanomaterials,butthepointisjustasrelevanthere:itsextremelyeasyforexploratoryresearchtotakeontheauraofauthoritative,actionableknowledgethroughthelensofthemedia.

Sowheredoesresponsibilitytotempersuchamplificationlie?Clearlythereneedstoberesponsiblereportingateverypointinthecommunicationchain.Butbytheverynatureofamplification,careisneededatthesourceofastorytohelpensurethatthefinalreportingisbothaccurateandresponsible(anissueIlookatmorecloselyhere)

Inthiscase,itwasperhapsinevitablethatresearchindicatingenvironmentalfactorsmaynotbeasimportantaspreviouslythoughtincausingcancerwouldleadtojustbadluckheadlines.Butthoseheadlinesdrawexplicitlyonthelanguageusedinthepaperandthepressrelease.

Wouldthemediacoveragehavebeendifferentiftheworkwaspitcheddifferently?ItshardtotellbutinthisinstanceIdcertainlybehesitanttoputalltheblameonbadjournalism.

Paper:Variationincancerriskamongtissuescanbeexplainedbythenumberofstemcelldivisions(2015)CristianTomasettiandBertVogelstein.Science,Vol.347no.6217pp.7881DOI:10.1126/science.126082

UpdatedJanuary4toincludeFigure2fromTomasettiandVogelstein(2015)

Sharethispost: onTwitter onFacebook onGoogle+

RelatedPosts:

Researchersshouldtakemoreresponsibilityforexaggerationinpressreleases

DoesBadLuckCauseMostCancersinNigeria?

Buildingtrustbetweenacademicsandjournalists

38comments Taggedwith:badluck,Cancer,Environment,Media,reporting in2020Science,Chemicals,EnvironmentalHealth

Timberati /January2,2015at7:19pm

Thanks,Andrew.ThereportIsawintheDailybeastthismorningsaidtheauthorshadalargecaveatforsmokinganditslinktolungcancer.

So,recognizingthisissomethingofaoneoff,theauthorsseemtosaythatwhileenvironmentalfactorshaveanaffect,thesemaybeonlyonethirdoftherisk?

AndrewMaynard /January2,2015at8:25pm

Yestheyclearlysaythatinsomecasesenvironmentalfactorsareimportantthesearethecancerswheretheirbadluckpredictionsdonthold.

DavidColquhoun /January3,2015at5:31am

Ifearthattheinternetattackdogswentforthewrongvictiminthiscase.Thepaperaddsweighttosimilarestimatesforthecontributionofchancethathavebeenaroundforyears,butwhichtheauthorsofalltheattacksseemtobeunaware.PleasereadGeorgeDaveySmithsexcellentJohnSnowlectureforagoodsummary.

Imbaffledbytheindignationengenderedbysuggestionthatchanceplaysabigpartinyourfate.Lifeisstochastic,toquitealargeextent.Ontwitter,AliceRobertsmadeaninterestinganalogy.

ProfAliceRoberts@DrAliceRoberts@david_colquhounImstruckbysimilarityinresistancetoacceptingroleofchanceinourindividuallives&healthandinevolution

Itsoddthatthesceptics,inthiscase,arebehavingabitlikecreationists,orthosewhobelievethatitsyourownfaultifyougetill.

AndrewMaynard /January3,2015at5:56am

ThanksforthecommentsDavidamincludingthelinktoGeorgeDaveySmithspaper:http://www.dcscience.net/DaveySmith2011.pdf

Beyondquestionsofblamehere,therearetwodeeplyrootednarrativesthathavebeentouchedinthisdialogue:

1.Badcompanies,badpeopleandbadactionscausecancerand2.Themediacynicallysensationalizeandmisreportscience

Isuspectthat,becauseofthis,thecoveragehasraisedirebecauseitseemstochallenge#1andseemstosupport#2.Andwhatwegetasaresultisadiscussionaboutdogmas,notdata.

Comments(38)


Themediacynicallysensationalizeandmisreportscience

WhilenottryingtoexoneratetheDailyMailfrommisreportingscience,Ifearthatthetruthisworsethanthat.Inmanycases,itisthepressreleasefromthejournal,orfromtheuniversityPRdepartmentthatsensationalisesthescience(andsincetheauthorswillnormallyapprovethesereleases,theymustacceptsomeoftheblame).Ihavegivenseveralexamplese.g.athttp://www.dcscience.net/2014/11/02/twomorecasesofhypeinglamourjournalsmagnetscocoaandmemory/

Inthisparticularcase,though,Imontheotherside.IwasastonishedwhenAdamJacobsmadetheassertionWeknowthatlifestyleishugelyimportantnotonlyforcancerbecausethatispreciselywhatwedontknow(andIwaspleasedtogetthesupportoftheoncologistandskeptic,DavidGorski,onthat).Inordertojustifythisclaim,hechoseoneofthepapersthatIdpreviouslysingledoutasbeingoneofthemostghastlyhypeddietpapersIdencountered.Seethediscussionathttp://www.statsguy.co.uk/aretwothirdsofcancersreallyduetobadluck/

michaelkenward /January3,2015at11:43am

ThankyouDavidColquhounforcommentingfromthesanersideofthisfeedingfrenzy.

ThefirstattackonthemediathatIsawcamefromsomeonewhodidnotevenbothertotelltheirreadersthatmuchofthehypeandoverstatementtheycomplainedofinthemediacoverageofthispaperwasinthepressreleasethatheraldedthepublicationinthejournalScience,itselfapowerfulPRmachine.Asyousaid,itishighlyunlikelythatthispressreleasegotoutwithoutresearcherclearance.

EventheabstractinSciencecontainedsomeofthecrimesagainsthumanitythatsoupsettherabidhordes.No,theevilscribblersdidnotsuddenlyconjureupthebadluckbit.

Itisinterestingthatmanyofthescientificexpertswhoweighedinfailedtodowhattheydemandofjournalists,digabitdeeperandfindtheevidencetosupportyourstory.IwonderhowmanyofthecriticsdidwhatIdidwhenafirstsawtheircomplaints,whichwastorushofftothesourceofthestorytoseewhatithadsaid.Thatimmediatelytoldmethatmanyflawsinthereportingowedmoretothesourcesthantothejournalists.

Butwhybothertodiluteyourbilewithfactswhenitismuchmoreconvenienttohammerawaywiththesametiredoldmediadoesntgetscienceline?Whynotbehavejustliketherightlyloathedand,assomeoneelsehassaid,possiblycarcinogenic,DailyMail,andwritesomethingthatfitsyourownagendaratherthanthefacts?

Icantbebotheredtoploughthroughallthetoshoutthereonthisone,soIhavenotfoundoutifthereareanycommentsaboutthepeerreviewofthepaper,inparticular,ofthestatisticalanalysis.GivendodgystatisticsisuptherewithplagiarismandcookedupdatawhenitcomestoretractedpapersIjustmadeupthatstatisticitisabitrichtocriticisejournalists,assomeofthecommentshave,fornotbeingexpertsinstatistics.

Therearemanystoriesouttherewherejournalistsdogetthingswrong.Byconstantly

gunningforstoriesthatowemuchtothetenoroftheoriginalmaterial,thetwitterlooniesfallintothecryingwolfcamp.

Now,hadtheycriticisedthemediaforchurnalism,parrotinggarbagefedtothembyaPRmachine,Imighthavejoinedinthefunandgames.

Timberati /January3,2015at10:24am

Iwontbeabletosaythisquiteright,statistically,butthisrandomnessisthen(partof)thereasonwhycancersshowuplaterinlife.Yes?Morethrowsofthedice,sotospeak.

AndrewMaynard /January3,2015at10:26am

Thiswouldmakesenseiftheprobabilityofgeneticmutationscorrelateswithcelldivisionsthemoredivisioncycles,thegreaterthecumulativechanceofaharmfulmutationoccurring

KatherineK.Moore /January3,2015at2:47pm

whatIfindinterestingishowpeoplerespondtocancernews,asthoughthatistheONLYbadnewsthatoccursinhealthcare?Manypeople,includingmanymanyhealthcareprovidersconsidercancertojustbetheworst,butreallymostchronicdegenerativediseasesareprettyawfulandmostofthemappeartobeduetorandomluckaswellIsupposeitcomesdowntowewillalldieofsomething.

KatherineK.Moore /January3,2015at2:48pm

butnoonewantstobelievethat.

BradleyJ.Fikes /January3,2015at3:59pm

HiAndrew,

Imoneofthereporterswhowroteaboutthestory.Thankyouforanevenhandedlookatthestudy,thepressrelease,andmediareports.OneobservationIdaddisthattheimpendingNewYearsholidayprobablymadeithardtogetindependentevaluations.(Itcertainlydidinmycase,althoughIeventuallysucceeded).

AdamJacobsmadeamisleadingstatementabouttherandommutationriskhypothesisaspresentedinthestudy:

Theproblemisthatitappliesonlytoexplainingthevariationincancerriskfromonetissuetoanother.Ittellsusnothingabouthowmuchoftheriskwithinagiventissueisduetomodifiablefactors.Youcouldpotentiallyseeexactlythesameresultswhethereachspecifictypeofcancerstruckcompletelyatrandomorwhethereachspecifictypewerehugelyinfluencedbyenvironmentalriskfactors.

Buttheauthorsaddressedthispoint,throughtheERSmethodyouquotedabove.MaybetheERSmethodisflawed,butJacobsblogpostdoesntevenacknowledgeitsexistence,

letaloneattempttorefuteit.

Themediareportsusuallystressedthatevenaonethirdriskfromenvironmentalfactorsisstillsignificant.SoJacobsclosingline:Forthemediatoclaimthatlifestyleisntimportant,basedonamisunderstandingofwhattheresearchshows,ishighlyirresponsible,issimplyfalse.EvenJacobslinktotheIndependentarticleonthestudybeliesthatstatement.

Best,

Bradley

DavidColquhoun /January3,2015at7:27pm

Thankstoyou,andtoMichaelKenwardfordefusingsomeofthehysteria.Ihaventseenyourreport,butitsoundsfromyourcommentthatyouvedelveddeeperthanmanyofthecritics.

Imquitebaffledaboutwhythereshouldbesuchastrongreactionagainsttheideathatchanceplaysasubstantialroleinyourfate.That,afterall,ishowevolutionworks.AndtheideawasformulatedquiteclearlybynoneotherthanRichardPetoin1977.

BradleyJ.Fikes /January3,2015at8:10pm

Ithinkthereactionstemsfromafearthatthepublicwillbehaveirresponsiblyiftoldchanceplaysapredominantroleincancer.Whilethatmayormaynotbetrue,itsaseparateissuethanthestudysscientificvalidity.Justbecauseascientistpersonallydislikeshowastudymaybeinterpretedisnotanargumentagainstitsaccuracy.

ThestudyitselfincludesstatementslikeThus,thestochasticeffectsofDNAreplicationappeartobethemajorcontributortocancerinhumans.Thatdoesntsay2/3ofallcancerscomefromrandommutation,ofcourse.Idliketoseethatquestionspecificallytackled,usingthestudydata,togettheproportionmorepreciselyquantified.Whilethepressreleasedidgivethe2/3numberasapplyingtoallcancers,Irecognizethatsnoexcuse.

PZMyersgaveathoughtfullookathowthestudycanbeusedtoimprovecancerpreventionandcare:j.mp/pzmyerscancer

AndrewMaynard /January4,2015at3:35pm

ThanksBradleyfrommyexperienceitshardtogettimelyacademicinput/commentatthebestoftimescantimaginetheadditionalchallengesoftryingoveraholidayperiod!

MichaelKenward /January4,2015at8:17pm

Indeed.Notrelatedtothisparticularsaga,Ihaveknownresearcherstoputoutapressreleaseandthentodisappearforalongvacationwithoutleavingcontactdetails.Dothatandyouhavenogroundstocomplainaboutsloppycoverage.

InoticedthatoneofthemorethoroughjournalisticarticlesonthepaperappearedinScienceitself.Iassumethatthewriterhadearlieraccesstothepaperthanlessermortals.

Pingback:Cancer:justbadluck?|AMSNewcastle

Jy /January3,2015at10:01pm

Makesmewonderiftheyeverevaluatedstochasticratesofcellmutationastheresponsevariableandtheenvironmentalvariablesasthecovariatesintheirregression.Inotherwords,whatpercentofthislabelledbadluckisexplainedbyenvironmentalvariables?Aretheseseeminglyrandommutationsperhapsdependent,toahighextent,onenvironmentalvariables?

LDP /January5,2015at1:26am

Iwaswonderingmuchthesamething.Dotheydeterminerandomnessvsenvironmentalfactorsthroughcellularisolationfromexposurestoexternalradicalsandsoon?Howdoesthiswork?


@BradleyJ.FikesThanksverymuchfordrawingmyattentiontoPZMyersblogonthistopic.http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/01/03/cancerbadgenesorbadluck/

ItsthebestpieceIvereadonthetopic.

VanyaLoroch /January4,2015at7:08am

IsntoneoftheunderlyingproblemsintheinterpretationoftheresultsofVogelsteinandTomasettisworktheverydefinitionofcancer?Foramedicaldoctor,cancermeansmetastaticdisease(oratleastdiseasethathasahighprobabilityofbecomingmetastatic).Thisisaclinical,reductionistdefinition.Buttoaddressthequestionoftheoriginsofcancer,oneneedstobroadenthisdefinitiontobiology.Andthisisacompletelydifferentstory,muchmorefuzzy,muchmorecomplexandusuallyaverylongone.Just

thinkaboutinsitutumors,alltheundiagnosedcancers,spontaneousremissions,etc.

VogelsteinandTomasettionlylookedatclinicallydiagnosedneoplasms,thevisibletipoftheplasmsiceberg.Butthecausesofcancerareburiedinthehugeinvisiblepart.Andthereisonethingweknowforsurenow:thepredominantprotectiveroleplayedbytheimmunesystem(thespectacularresultsobtainedbynontargetedimmunotherapiesillustratethiswell).Wealsoknowthatthestateoftheimmunesystemdependsstronglyonenvironmentalandbehavioralfactors.

Ifso,isntthestatusoftheimmunesystemTHEMAJORlinkbetweenenvironmentandbehaviorandtheriskofcancer?

VogelsteinandTomasettisworkdidnotlookatanyofthis.ThisisOK,Iguessbecausethescopeofthepaperisquitelimited.Butthemessagerelayedbythemediaiswronganddangeroussinceitdevaluespreventionandhealthpromotion.

Itslikesayingthatthemoretimesanairplanetakesoffandlands,thehighertheriskofcrashing.Andtoremainaliveweneedtofly,Ofcourseitstrue.Butitsaverypartialview,becausewhatpreventsairplanecrashesareALSOalltheothersmalleraccidentsthatbuilduptoairdisasters.VogelsteinandTomasettisworkonlylookedatcrashstatistics.

Thanksforreadingmylongcomment.

JG /January6,2015at2:34am

Oneshallnotignoreabouttheinfluenceofgrantsprovidersandlackofdatavalidationwithinthecashstrappedresearchcommunities.WeshouldnotblamethemediafordoingwhatauniversitylikeJ.H.shouldnothavedone,i.e.,throwawaytheprinciplesoffurtherscientificdiscussionforthesakeofPR.Asithashappenedinmanycasesinthepast,thesamePRmaycomebacktothemaseggsonthefaceoftheirreputation.

Cancerhasmanyfaces,andevenastoday,noonecansaysimplybecauseithappensincertainpartsofbodythatisnecessarythesamethingfurtherawayfromevenbeingatype.

Aretheauthorssurethestatistical/mathematicalmodelstheyhaveusedisthefinalverdictwithinthescientificcommunitiesbothaliveandinthefuture[ifyes,whytheykeepprintingnewtextswithnoendtothem?]Or,arethecellbiologistsjobisdonebysimplifyingallkindsofcelldivisionsunderasinglebiologicalsystem?

Onethingatruescientistmustknowisinanyanalysis,thenullhypothesisprovidesnoguarantythatherorhisresultsareright!Andthatisevenifthevalidityofdataarekosher.

Andbytheway,lifeitselfisarandomphenomenawithinarandommedium,influencedbyrandomambientthatisconstantlyinfusedbyrandomenvironmentalfactorscomingfromrandomdirections.Itistheheightofstupiditytotryexplainrandombyadefinitenumber.

Pingback:Links1/6/15|MiketheMadBiologist

Pingback:CancerandBadluck:BadScienceand/orBadJournalismand/oruncriticalacceptance|StealthRacism

FrankSchauder /January7,2015at2:56pm

Thakyouforthecommentsonthepaperandtheresultingmediaheadlines.Butevenif2/3oftheexamined31cancertypesseemtodependonrandom(genetic)effectsastatementsuchasTwoThirdsofCancerCasesAreSimplyDowntoBadLuckissimplywrongandclearlymisleading.Theincidenceofeachcancerhastobeetakeninconsideration(breast,colon,prostatecancerisbefarmorefrequentthanduodenumcancer).

Pingback:RiskScienceCenterBadluckcausesmostcancers?Nigeriansknowthat!

Steve /January11,2015at6:01pm

Whatdotheauthorssayabouttheroleoftheimmunesystemininfluencingwhetheracancerousmutation,onceithasoccurred,developsintoalifethreateningtumor?Afterall,oneofthefunctionsoftheimmunesystemistodestroycancerouscellsbeforetheygrowintolargetumors.Andmuchresearchhasshownthatenvironment,lifestyle,andgeneticshaveabigeffectontheefficacyoftheimmunesystem.Sowhileitmightbethecasethatmanycancercellsarecreatedbychance,surelyhealthbehaviors,theenvironment,andgeneticsstillhaveanimportantrole,mediatedthroughtheimmunesystem,indetermininghowdeadlythosecancersbecome.Ifthatsright,thentheheadline2/3ofcancersarerandomshouldnotbeinterpretedas2/3oflifethreateningcancersarerandom.Rathertheheadlineshouldbe2/3ofcancerousmutationsdevelopbychance.

Paulcatherall /January12,2015at6:33pm

WellsaidSteve,with60trillioncellstherearealwayscellsnotformingcorrectly.Theprogressionfromatransformedcelltoafullblowntumourcellisnotinstant.Ageneticpredispositiontoacancercanbeviewedasjuststartingfurtheralongthelineoftransformation.Theimmunesystemincludestransformedcellsselfdestructingorbeingdestroyedbyneighbouringcells.Thissignallingisimportanttounderstandandisinfluencedbyenvironmentalfactors.OneimportantexampleistheoldesthormonesystemofthebodycalledEicosanoids,whichisthesignallinggatewaytotheimmunesystem.HarvardmedicalschoolquoteEicosanoidsmayrepresentamissinglinkbetweeninflammationandcancerandthuscouldserveastherapeutictarget(s)forinhibitingtumorgrowth.OneformofEicosanoidiscalledResolvinsandthesecanonlybemadefrom20carbon(longchain)omega3andtheseendtheinflammatorycycle.Thismechanismisadverselyimpactedbyexcessiveomega6,transfats,andhighinsulinlevelswhichcanbecontrolled.

Pingback:ActwithLoveBlog|ResearchWorthWatching:BadLuckandStemCells

DavidHammond /January14,2015at3:52pm

Idontgethowtheauthoristryingtosaythatthepressmisrepresentedtheauthors?TheyCLEARLYstatedthatbadluckisalargefactor.Sohowisreportingthisbacksuchacrime?Itswhattheysaidthemselves!

Furthermore,whattheauthorofthisarticlemissesisthattheconclusionofthisstudyisacompletejoke.Itispurescientificlazinesstosaythattwothirdsofcancerarecausedbybadluck.WhydontwetackonthewrathofGodwhilewereatit?Basically,thescientistshavehitawallwheretheycannolongerexplainsomething.Yetunlikeeverylegitimatescientistinhistorywheretheysimplyadmittheydontknowandthencontinueresearchingthesepeopleinsteadsaythattheydohavetheansweranditsduetobadluck.Sowhatexactlyisthescientificdefinitionofbadluck?AndhowonEarthisbadlucknowconsideredtobealegitimate,measurablescientificinfluence?Didtheyeverconsiderthatperhapsemotionalwellbeingmayprovidekeylinks?Thisissobeyondabsurdyouhonestlycouldntmakeitup.Wakeuppeople.Yourebeingduped.


Imafraidthatyouhavenocomprehensionatallofrandomprocesses(inthiscaserandomerrorsinDNAreplication).Atthelevelofsinglemolecules,everythingisrandom.Ithinkperhapsyoushouldreadupaboutstochasticprocessesbeforegettingsoindignant.

DavidHammond /January15,2015at1:32pm

Nothingisrandominthisuniverse.Everythingisbasedoncauseandeffect,whetherwehappentounderstandityetornot.Electrons,forexample,actasparticleswhenobservedwithacamera.However,whennoequipmentobservestheelectrons,theyactaswavesandparticlessimultaneously.Soevensimpleobservationchangesthings.Butwhowouldknowthisifithadntbeendeterminedthroughscience?Ifithadntbeen,someonewouldcomealongandcallitrandomluck,simplybecausetheydontknow.Itisonethingtosaythatyoudontunderstandacausetoaneffect,andquiteanothertosaythatyoudoknow,andthatisbecauseofluck.Imsorry,butthatsjustabsurd.ThatisNOTscience.Factoringinluck,somethingthathasnoscientificdefinitionwhatsoever,isabsolutelyirresponsibleatbest,andfraudulentatworst.Everythingisbasedoncauseandeffect,whetherwehappentounderstandityetornot.


Notagoodexample.Everyindividualelectronmovesrandomly.IsuggestsomereadingaboutBrownianmotion,oraboutstatisticalmechanics.Thingslooksmoothonlywhenaveragedoverlargenumbersofparticles.

mars /January17,2015at3:53am

David,Itdependswhatmeaningisgiventorandom.Ifyoumean,notpredictable,thensure,manyphysicalprocessesaredeeplyrandom.Butthatkindofrandomnessisanepistemicmatter,ratherthananontologicalone.Inthatsenserandomnessisacontingentfactaboutourknowledge(and,beyondthat,ourcognitivelimitations),ratherthanafactaboutnatureingeneral.Butifbyrandomyoumeannotcaused,thenIthinkthediscussionmovesontoamorephilosophicalterrainGoddoesntplaydice,thatkindofthinginwhichwewouldhavetogetsomeaccountofwhatwemeanbycausation.IsuspecttheconceptofrandomnessthatMr.Hammondisobjectingtoistheontologicaloneratherthantheepistemicone.ButIalsosuspectthatwhattheauthorsmeanbyrandomisnotnotcausedbutnotpredictableinawaythatcouldleadtomeaningfulintervention.Mars

Pingback:BadLuckandStemCells|UltraDrift

Pingback:BadLuckandStemCells|PinoriaNews

Pingback:BadLuckandStemCells|SkyMeteor

Pingback:BadLuckandStemCells|OmahaSunTimes

Pingback:BadLuckandStemCellsMyWeightLossBlog|MyWeightLossBlog

1415WashingtonHeights,AnnArbor48108,Tel:7346153050,[email protected]

Tosearchtypeandhitenter

2013RegentsoftheUniversityofMichigan|SchoolofPublicHealth