I haven't read the paper, but it's worth noting that the paper is not in <i>Nature</i>, as the linked article claims, but in <i>Nature Cancer Review</i>. <i>Na

I haven't read the paper, but it's worth noting that the paper is not in <i>Nature</i>, as the linked article claims, but in <i>Nature Cancer Review</i>. <i>Nature Cancer Review</i> publishes news and commentary. The paper is published as a "Perspectives" article; such articles are meant to provide commentary on "the implications and applications of science in our society." It looks like "Perspectives" articles are not even peer-reviewed (only "Review"-type articles are). Very unlike <i>Nature</i>. Rosalie David's last paper in <i>Nature</i> was in 1987.