This doesn't mean the problem can't be solved by "logic". If true, then research groups that are operating within such misguided frameworks will need to update

This doesn't mean the problem can't be solved by "logic". If true, then research groups that are operating within such misguided frameworks will need to update their understanding of how cancer works. I think a common trope is to point out some system that humans are currently unable to model in a robust or effective manner, and then throw up one's hands and declare "science and logic can't be used to solve this problem!" The current lack of an effective model for some system in no way implies that one will not eventually be found. To be fair, this article isn't quite doing that, and makes some very important points. I only bring this up as it is a misleading line of argument to watch out for that I run into from time to time, and a few lines in the article were slightly reminiscent of such reasoning. Ecology is a scientific endeavor, and perhaps it will prove to be a more powerful paradigm for looking at a cancer. I hope we can make the most of any tools at our disposal to significantly reduce the harm caused by cancer.