What is now familiarly referred to as the ‘embryonic stem (ES) cell’ is a recent biological category whose origins lie in research into benign and malignant teratomas carried out in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. In these studies, the question of the normal or pathological character of the ES cell was a matter of considerable debate and indeed the term ES cell was often used interchangeably with that of the embryonal carcinoma (EC) cell. This article argues that the indecisiveness of (...) the entity known as the ES cell—its refusal to commit to established demarcations between the normal and the pathological—continues to haunt the field of stem cell science. Exploring the prehistory of research into ES cells, early theories of cancer (in particular the embryonal theory expounded by Julius Cohnheim) and recent theoretical critiques of the somatic mutation theory, the article not only points to a shift in understandings of the normal and the pathological but asks under what conditions such shifts are able to take place. (shrink)

The somatic mutation theory has been the prevailing paradigm in cancer research for the last 50 years. Its premises are: (1) cancer is derived from a single somatic cell that has accumulated multiple DNA mutations, (2) the default state of cell proliferation in metazoa is quiescence, and (3) cancer is a disease of cell proliferation caused by mutations in genes that control proliferation and the cell cycle. From this compelling simplicity, an increasingly complicated picture has emerged as more than 100 (...) oncogenes and 30 tumor suppressor genes have been identified. To accommodate this complexity, additional ad hoc explanations have been postulated. After a critical review of the data gathered from this perspective, an alternative research program has been proposed. It is based on the tissue organization field theory, the premises of which are that carcinogenesis represents a problem of tissue organization, comparable to organogenesis, and that proliferation is the default state of all cells. The merits of these competing theories are evaluated herein. BioEssays 26:1097–1107, 2004. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice". The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the student's mind. Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that scientists know what the world is like...To this end, "normal science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations. Research (...) is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education". (shrink)

Two books have been particularly influential in contemporary philosophy of science: Karl R. Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery, and Thomas S. Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Both agree upon the importance of revolutions in science, but differ about the role of criticism in science's revolutionary growth. This volume arose out of a symposium on Kuhn's work, with Popper in the chair, at an international colloquium held in London in 1965. The book begins with Kuhn's statement of his position followed by (...) seven essays offering criticism and analysis, and finally by Kuhn's reply. The book will interest senior undergraduates and graduate students of the philosophy and history of science, as well as professional philosophers, philosophically inclined scientists, and some psychologists and sociologists. (shrink)

Metaphysical presuppositions are important for guiding scientific practices and research. The success of twentieth-century biology, for instance, is largely attributable to presupposing that complex biological processes are reducible to elementary components. However, some biologists have challenged the sufficiency of reductionism for investigating complex biological phenomena and have proposed alternative presuppositions like organicism. In this article, contemporary cancer research is used as a case study to explore the importance of metaphysical presuppositions for guiding research. The predominant paradigm directing cancer research is (...) the somatic mutation theory, in which mutated genes are presumed to be ultimately responsible for explaining carcinogenesis. This reductionistic approach to cancer has been criticised recently, and an organistic approach has been proposed. The article concludes with a discussion of the reciprocal interaction of metaphysical presuppositions and scientific practices for investigating cancer's complex nature. (shrink)

The current mainstream in cancer research favours the idea that malignant tumour initiation is the result of a genetic mutation. Tumour development and progression is then explained as a sort of micro-evolutionary process, whereby an initial genetic alteration leads to abnormal proliferation of a single cell that leads to a population of clonally derived cells. It is widely claimed that tumour progression is driven by natural selection, based on the assumption that the initial tumour cells acquire some properties that endow (...) such cells with a selective advantage over the normal cells from which the tumour cells are derived. The standard view assumes that the transformed bodily cell somehow acquires "responsiveness" to natural selection independently of the whole organism to which the cell belongs. Yet, it is never explained where such an acquired capacity to respond to natural selection by the individual bodily cell comes from. This situation poses many difficult questions that so far have been left unanswered. For example, there is no explanation why some cells belonging to an organised whole and as such having no independent capacity for survival, apparently become 'independent' entities, able to respond to selective pressures in an autonomous fashion and then to be evaluated by natural selection. Hereunder it is argued that such a qualitative change cannot be the consequence of specific genetic mutations. Moreover, it is shown that natural selection is unlikely to be acting within the organism during tumour development and progression and that tumour evolution is a random, non-adaptive process, driven by no fundamental biological principle. Thus, mutations in the so-called oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes observed in epithelial cancers (that constitute more than 90% of all cancers) are not the result of selection for better cellular growth or survival under restrictive conditions. Instead, here it is suggested that they are the consequence of genetic drift acting upon gene functions that become non-relevant, either for the individual or the species fitness, once the organism is past its reproductive prime and as such, they also become superfluous for cell survival in the short term. It is proposed that the origin of cancer is epigenetic and it is a consequence of the need for a continued turnover of the individuals that constitute a species. (shrink)

The dominant position in Philosophy of Science contends that downward causation is an illusion. Instead, we argue that downward causation doesn’t introduce vicious circles either in physics or in biology. We also question the metaphysical claim that “physical facts fix all the facts.” Downward causation does not imply any contradiction if we reject the assumption of the completeness and the causal closure of the physical world that this assertion contains. We provide an argument for rejecting this assumption. Furthermore, this allows (...) us to reconsider the concept of diachronic emergence. (shrink)

This article proposes that cancers can be initiated by retrotransposon (RTN) activation through changes in the transcriptional regulation of nearby genes. I first detail the hypothesis and then discuss the nature of physiological stress(es) in RTN activation; the role of DNA demethylation in the initiation and propagation of new RTN states; the connection between ageing and cancer incidence and the involvement of activated RTNs in the chromosomal aberrations that feature in cancer progression. The hypothesis neither replaces nor invalidates other theories (...) of cancer, in particular the somatic mutation theory, but helps clarify and unify much of the hitherto poorly integrated, complex phenomenology of cancer. (shrink)

The use of a reporter gene in transgenic mice indicates that there are many local mutations and large genomic rearrangements per somatic cell that accumulate with age at different rates per organ and without visible effects. Dissociation of the cells for monolayer culture brings out great heterogeneity of size and loss of function among cells that presumably reflect genetic and epigenetic differences among the cells, but are masked in organized tissue. The regulatory power of a mass of contiguous normal cells (...) is expressed in its capacity to normalize the appearance and growth behavior of solitary homophilic neoplastic cells, and to redirect differentiation of solitary heterophilic stem‐like cells. Intimate contact between the interacting cells is required to induce these changes. The normalization of the neoplastic phenotype does not require gap junctional communication between cells, though transdifferentiation might. These varied relationships are manifestations of the unifying biological principle of “order in the large over heterogeneity in the small”. BioEssays 28: 515–524, 2006. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

In the past decades, an enormous amount of precious information has been collected about molecular and genetic characteristics of cancer. This knowledge is mainly based on a reductionistic approach, meanwhile cancer is widely recognized to be a ‘system biology disease’. The behavior of complex physiological processes cannot be understood simply by knowing how the parts work in isolation. There is not solely a matter how to integrate all available knowledge in such a way that we can still deal with complexity, (...) but we must be aware that a deeply transformation of the currently accepted oncologic paradigm is urgently needed. We have to think in terms of biological networks: understanding of complex functions may in fact be impossible without taking into consideration influences outside of the genome. Systems Biology involves connecting experimental unsupervised multivariate data to mathematical and computational approach than can simulate biologic systems for hypothesis testing or that can account for what it is not known from high-throughput data sets. Metabolomics could establish the requested link between genotype and phenotype, providing informations that ensure an integrated understanding of pathogenic mechanisms and metabolic phenotypes and provide a screening tool for new targeted drug. (shrink)

Despite the spectacular contributions to knowledge made by molecular biology during the last half century, cancer research has not delivered an agreed explanation of how malignant tumours originate. The models assiduously investigated in molecular terms largely reflect waves of fashion, and time has revealed their inadequacy: cancer is (1) not caused by the direct action of oncogenes, (2) not fully explained by the impairment of tumour suppressor genes, (3) not set in motion by mutations controlling the cell cycle, (4) not (...) governed by the dependence of malignant tumours on an adequate blood supply and (5) not triggered by a failure of programmed cell death. But there is now strong evidence that cancers may have their origin in mutations that block the execution of critical steps in the process of normal differentiation. Cancer, thus seen, is not initially a disease of cell multiplication, but a disease of differentiation. The evidence for this point of view should now be explored. BioEssays 27:833–838, 2005. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

Our incomplete understanding of carcinogenesis may be a significant reason why some cancer mortality rates are still increasing. This lack of understanding is likely due to a research approach that relies heavily on genetic comparison between cancerous and non‐cancerous tissues and cells, which has led to the identification of genes of cancer proliferation rather than differentiation. Recent observations showing that a tremendous degree of natural human genetic variation occurs are likely to lead to a shift in the basic paradigms of (...) cancer genetics, in that there is a need to consider both the nature of the genes involved, and the idea that not every genetic variation identified in these genes may be associated with carcinogenesis. Based on studies using LCM and micro‐genetic analyses, we propose that significant cancer initiating events may take place during the very early stages of development of cancer‐susceptible tissues and that using such techniques might greatly help us in our understanding of carcinogenesis. BioEssays 29:678–685, 2007. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)