Well, sort of, but no. The thing is, your given (some event corrupts the cell's DNA) needs to be examined. Let's agree that some event corrupts the cell's DNA

Well, sort of, but no. The thing is, your given (some event corrupts the cell's DNA) needs to be examined. Let's agree that some event corrupts the cell's DNA as you suggest, and then follow up with some questions. 1) Where in the enormous strand was it corrupted? 1a) Was it one place, or several? 2) What corrupted it? 2a) Again, was it one cause, or five different causes, three of which we don't know about and can't currently track? 3) Does the mechanism of action (the thing that caused the mutation) change the way a specific pathology progresses, even if it's a similar mutation in the same area? (yes) So that's sort of the problem with cancer research. They're not trying to solve a single problem with a bunch of different presentations, they're trying to solve a fuckton of problems with a similar number of presentations, some of which are similar even though they have different roots.