6 ms·
As some context, in 2001, a couple of scientists many might consider to be the closest to the "leaders of cancer research" wrote a seminal review in the journal
by ramraj07 8y ago
As some context, in 2001, a couple of scientists many might consider to be the closest to the "leaders of cancer research" wrote a seminal review in the journal Cell called as "hallmarks of cancer" where they set out to define 7 essential (or what they thought was essential) things that a tumor has to do to be defined as cancerous.
That list did not include any mention whatsoever of the immune system. IIRC the only mention of the immune system was in one sentence deep in the review where they just casually disregard it.
I was still in high school when this review came out so I probably can't say I would have thought differently but at least to me that review was indicative of the fairly myopic way research happens in general, even today. Imagine this - two of the leaders of the field who are supposed to fill out ten pages of all the things that could affect or be affected by a developing cancer, and it did not fathom to the that the immune system had something to do with it?
The more outrageous thing is its not unheard of that the immune system has a role to play. People had suspected a long time that even chemo therapy in general only works via the immune response. It's the level of insulation between immunologists and cancer biologists that was to blame. People just decided to stick to one gene or disease and really didn't want to give a shit about anything else happening in biology with serious thought. No wonder it has taken us so long!
And if you think Im being too harsh, a decade later in 2011 the same authors wrote an amended review to update their original. By now it had become obvious that the immune system presented both a formidable barrier at first and an essential ally in later steps for any cancer to be able to grow and thrive. Don't know about you, but that sounds like an essential "Hallmark" of cancer to me. But then of course lest we correct ourselves, the researchers just grouped the immune checkpoint as one of the several other "supplemental" hallmarks that were discovered since.
- Retric 8y agoBeing factually incorrect does not mean they made a mistake. The correct response to every science idea is extreme skepticism without evidence. That’s not to say we should avoid gathering evidence, just that the default needs to be conservative.
- ramraj07 8y agoThe point though is that there _was_ evidence. They just didn't see it (at first) or chose to wittingly or unwittingly undermine it (a decade later). Skepticism of results is one thing, but wilful pursuance of the "only way to approach things is the way I know of, every other way has to be proven beyond any other metric I would need for my own way to be considered" is another.
- Retric 8y agoThey can only respond to evidence they have. This is the entire point of publishing research. It’s the people collecting evidence’s job to make it public. Especially if it’s groundbreaking.
- unimployed 8y agoAnd again, that’s using a position of authority to dismiss new evidence on speculation rather than facts or science. Good science exercises restraint in quickness to judge new evidence, allowing time for discovery to work as needed. The opinionated orthodoxy of science doesn’t contemplate a wait and see approach, because the scientific method takes a backseat to other concerns such as politics, pride, prestige, funding, and innumerable other unscientific motivations in opinionated science.
- Farradfahren 8y agoThe problem is, that a theory school is a network of careers, based upon something that a new school could either render completely obsolete or draw funds away from. So those established are often literally fighting for there lifelihood. These attacks are a propertie of people who have alot to loose, which is ironic because most of those established head figures have tenure. Yet, there court and power could vannish. Maybe some power-politics intrigue mechanism could change that. If you can convert alot of current low establishment (post-docs) to sign secretly for your theory, you could overturn the whole powerstructure in a coup, unless the ruling person defuses the situation by claiming the results to be true first.
- 8y ago
- HeadsUpHigh 8y agoI think you are missing the point of that paper. It doesn't sound like it was some forward looking paper but rather an effort to put what we already knew into words. Since then a big row of antibody treatments have entered the market with big success, which in turn means that our current understanding of cancer has evolved. The idea of the immune system playing a big role was not proven back then.