2 ms·

It's amazing just how badly this study was distorted by generalized clickbaitism. It chafed me sufficiently enough to put out a video on the subject at the time

It's amazing just how badly this study was distorted by generalized clickbaitism. It chafed me sufficiently enough to put out a video on the subject at the time[1]. The hype really wasn't even necessary... the underlying findings were plenty interesting enough already: that there is an association between stem cell division rate of specific tissues and overall cancer risk. This, however, in no way implies that cancer is only due to bad luck. Science ended up printing a follow-up actually clarify things, perhaps feeling themselves that the interpretation by the public at large got out of hand a little bit[2]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiH4m7NvV98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiH4m7NvV98 [2] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/01/bad-luck-and-cancer-science-reporter-s-reflections-controversial-story http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/01/bad-luck-and-cancer-s...

nchelluri 10y ago
IMO, the author does clarify this sufficiently, > In other words, this study argued that the more times D.N.A. replicates, the more often something can go wrong. Some took this to mean that cancer is much more because of “bad luck” than because of other factors that people could control. > Unfortunately, this simple explanation is not really what the study showed. Lung cells, for instance, divide quite rarely, and still account for a significant amount of cancer. Cells in the gastrointestinal tract divide all the time and account for many fewer cancers. Some cancers, like melanoma, were found to be in the group of cancers influenced more by intrinsic factors (or those we can’t control), when we clearly know that extrinsic factors, like sun exposure, are a major cause. as well, he only opens with that and aims to debunk the bad luck hypothesis by means of the other two studies. which again I personally have no idea about :)

nchelluri 10y ago

IMO, the author does clarify this sufficiently, > In other words, this study argued that the more times D.N.A. replicates, the more often something can go wrong. Some took this to mean that cancer is much more because of “bad luck” than because of other factors that people could control. > Unfortunately, this simple explanation is not really what the study showed. Lung cells, for instance, divide quite rarely, and still account for a significant amount of cancer. Cells in the gastrointestinal tract divide all the time and account for many fewer cancers. Some cancers, like melanoma, were found to be in the group of cancers influenced more by intrinsic factors (or those we can’t control), when we clearly know that extrinsic factors, like sun exposure, are a major cause. as well, he only opens with that and aims to debunk the bad luck hypothesis by means of the other two studies. which again I personally have no idea about :)