Advertisement

Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 66, Issue 3, pp 243–250 | Cite as

A Possible Role for Philosophy: Bridging the Conceptual Divide in Cancer Research

Marta Bertolaso: Philosophy of Cancer: A Dynamic and Relational View, Springer, Dordrecht, 2016, 190 pp, ISBN: 978-94-024-0863-8
  • Silvia Caianiello
Book Review
  • 93 Downloads

There is an impasse in cancer research. Even the moderate optimism which prompted the journal Science in 2006 to celebrate a “glass half-full”, based on the rational expectation that the rapid progress in the “molecular description” of cancer would boost up success in its treatment, has found no corroboration in the epidemiological data as captured 10 years later. In the 2016 National Health Statistics Report for the USA, cancer exhibits a depressingly dull straight line from 1958 to 2014, the most unvaried one compared to other pathologies—such as heart diseases, formerly the primary cause of death, and now contending with cancer for this sad primacy (NCHS 2017, p. 18). Robert Weinberg, a pioneer of the molecular genetics of cancer, has lately given voice to the frustration that, notwithstanding the identification of an increasing number of molecular players, we still “lack the conceptual paradigms and computational strategies for dealing with cancer’s endless complexity” (Weinberg 2014...

References

  1. Abbott A (2003) Biology’s new dimension. Nature 424:870–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker SG, Kramer BS (2007) Paradoxes in carcinogenesis: new opportunities for research directions. BMC Cancer 7:151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedessem B, Ruphy S (2015) SMT or TOFT? How the two main theories of carcinogenesis are made (Artificially) incompatible. Acta Biotheor 63:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertolaso M, Dupré J (2018) A processual perspective on cancer. In: Dupré J, Nicholson D (ed) Everything flows. Towards a processual philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Bizzarri M, Cucina A (2016) SMT and TOFT: why and how they are opposite and incompatible paradigms. Acta Biotheor 64:221–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boveri T (2008) Concerning the origin of malignant tumours (1914), translated and annotated by H. Harris. J Cell Sci 121:1–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breslauer DN, Lee PJ, Lee LP (2006) Microfluidics-based systems biology. Mol Biosys 2:97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coffman JA (2006) On reductionism, organicism, somatic mutations and cancer. BioEssays 27:459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Domazet-Lošo T, Tautz D (2010) Phylostratigraphic tracking of cancer genes suggests a link to the emergence of multicellularity in metazoan. BMC Biol 8:66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fearon ER, Vogelstein B (1990) A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell 61:759–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fell HB (1972) Tissue culture and its contribution to biology and medicine. J Exp Biol 57:1–13Google Scholar
  12. Griffiths PW, Stotz K (2013) Genetics and philosophy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grobstein C (1963) Microenvironmental influences in cytodifferentiation. In: Allen JM (ed) The nature of biological diversity. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Harris H (2005) A long view of fashions in cancer research. BioEssays 27:833–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacks T, Weinberg RA (2002) Taking the study of cancer cell survival to a new dimension. Cell 111:923–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karnoub AE, Dash AB, Vo AP, Sullivan A, Brooks MW, Bell GW, Richardson AL, Polyak K, Tubo R, Weinberg RA (2007) Mesenchymal stem cells within tumour stroma promote breast cancer metastasis. Nature 449:557–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B (1997) Gatekeepers and caretakers. Nature 386:761–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Malaterre C (2007) Organicism and reductionism in cancer research: towards a systemic approach. InternatStud Philos Sci 21:57–73Google Scholar
  19. Mikkers H, Frisén J (2005) Deconstructing stemness. EMBO J 24:2715–2719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morange M (2007) The field of cancer research: an indicator of present transformations in biology. Oncogene 26:7607–7610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. National Center for Health Statistics (2017) Health, United States, 2016: with chartbook on long-term trends in health. National Center for Health Statistics, HyattsvilleGoogle Scholar
  22. Noble D (2012) A theory of biological relativity: no privileged level of causation. Interface Focus 2:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prehn RT (1994) Cancers beget mutations versus mutations beget cancers. Cancer Res 54:5296–5300Google Scholar
  24. Rather LJ (1978) The genesis of cancer. A study in the history of an idea. John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  25. Simian M, Bissell MJ (2017) Organoids: a historical perspective of thinking in three dimensions. J Cell Biol 216:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Soto AM, Sonnenschein C (2006) Emergentism by default: a view from the bench. Synthese 151:361–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Soto AM, Maffini MV, Sonnenschein C (2008) Neoplasia as development gone awry: the role of endocrine disruptors. Int J Androl 31:288–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Takebe T, Zhang B, Radisic M (2017) Synergistic engineering: organoids meet organs-on-a-chip. Cell Stem Cell 21:297–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vaux DL (2011) In defense of the somatic mutation theory of cancer. BioEssays 33:341–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weinberg RA (1985) The molecules of life. Sci Am 253:48–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weinberg RA (2014) Coming full circle—from endless complexity to simplicity and back again. Cell 157:267–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Istituto per la Storia del Pensiero Filosofico e Scientifico Moderno, Consiglio Nazionale delle RicercheNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations