Most types of cancer not due to “bad luck” [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Most types of cancer not due to “bad luck” [pdf]

#11

Post by rpedroso » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 2:20 PM UTC

The author makes a few references to the idea of "scientific consensus", which I find curious. It's a phrase that I tend to cast aside as politically motivated. Politicians in the climate change debate like to point to "scientific consensus" as a way of saying, "look, all these intelligent people whose work we personally don't understand agree, so they must be correct."

But one tenant of scientific thought is that truth and factuality are not measures of an individual's or society's belief, but rather, they are discovered by experiments whose results can be replicated.

> People distrust science when it conflicts with their valued beliefs, or when science suggests a solution or intervention that conflicts with their beliefs. People are happy to trust science when it does not conflict with their ideology or narrative.

I agree, but those same people generally rationalize those views to themselves in the way Adams noted: by pointing at reasons to distrust science or scientists. They get caught up in issues like "climategate", they assert that results about medical science are distorted by financial pressures, etc.

In short, the rationalizations of individuals who reject scientific results often point to the scientists behind the results, their interests and motivations, instead of the results themselves. This isn't exclusively true, but I think the tie in to the idea of "scientific consensus" is this:

Perhaps science would be better served by a decreased emphasis on the individuals carrying out scientific research and increased emphasis on the results themselves.

Re: Most types of cancer not due to “bad luck” [pdf]

#12

Post by athenot » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 2:22 PM UTC

A piece of data that appears to corroborate this article was recently on HN. It concerned a Greek island where people have unusual long life[0], and followed a man who was diagnosed in the US by 9 doctors with terminal cancer... only to survive them all from his island where it is believed several lifestyle factors play important roles in longevity (and cancer prevention/recovery for this man).

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/magazine/the-island-where-...

Re: Most types of cancer not due to “bad luck” [pdf]

#13

Post by underyx » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 2:25 PM UTC

jkot wrote: post #10

regularfry wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a myth that prostate cancer is something you die with, rather than die of?

I dont know. But in Europe preventive checks are highly recommended (and covered).

Where in Europe?

Re: Most types of cancer not due to “bad luck” [pdf]

#14

Post by blfr » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 2:28 PM UTC

rpedroso wrote: post #11

The author makes a few references to the idea of "scientific consensus", which I find curious. It's a phrase that I tend to cast aside as politically motivated. Politicians in the climate change debate like to point to "scientific consensus" as a way of saying, "look, all these intelligent people whose work we personally don't understand agree, so they must be correct." But one tenant of scientific thought is that tr…

The hallmark of science is predictive power. Experiments, replication, peer review are all nice but optional.

When you have a general enough theory, you don't need to re-do the exact same experiment. You may not need to experiment at all and get by on mere observation. (Just call it a "natural experiment" when pressed.)

Re: Most types of cancer not due to “bad luck” [pdf]

#15

Post by calinet6 » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 2:31 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #4

SquareWheel wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not as simple as that. Most "indecisiveness" that appears to come from science is from different studies being taken out of context, or poor media reporting. Most wild claims you see aren't from the researchers themselves. See Steven Novella's recent blog post on this subject. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/scott-adams-on-...

Yeah, I know, I'm just echoing the perennial exasperation at science advancing bit by uncertain bit.

Hopefully sarcastically, because in the face of such overwhelming uncertainty, that is the only way we can advance, and therefore we must continue.

Re: Most types of cancer not due to “bad luck” [pdf]

#16

Post by melling » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 2:32 PM UTC

SquareWheel wrote: post #3

StavrosK wrote: post #2

Jeez, make up your mind, science!

It's not as simple as that. Most "indecisiveness" that appears to come from science is from different studies being taken out of context, or poor media reporting. Most wild claims you see aren't from the researchers themselves. See Steven Novella's recent blog post on this subject. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/scott-adams-on-...

I'm not sure that matters. It's ok to eat cholesterol now, right? All these "mistakes" give science a black eye. We've already got a Climate Change trustworthyness problem and for some reason people don't trust vaccines, mostly educated people. As a nation, we refused to fund both the Hubble and the Supercollider, which would have been bigger than CERN.

It's probably time that we stopped making excuses and think of a better way to explain the "science" to people.

Re: Most types of cancer not due to “bad luck” [pdf]

#17

Post by avnfish » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 2:32 PM UTC

I'm pretty confused by the term 'luck' in these papers. Surely 'random mutation' is exactly how cancer propagates in all cases? Risk factors coexist with 'luck'. The chance of suffering a cancerous mutation is like rolling a dice, and risk factors are the equivalent of the number of dice being rolled. It's not a question of 'OR', it's a question of 'AND'.

E.g.: You're a smoker who develops lung cancer: you are 'unlucky' in the sense you suffered a random mutation AND also 'responsible' because you smoke, which is a primary risk factor.

Re: Most types of cancer not due to “bad luck” [pdf]

#18

Post by StavrosK » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 2:35 PM UTC

calinet6 wrote: post #15

StavrosK wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I know, I'm just echoing the perennial exasperation at science advancing bit by uncertain bit.

Hopefully sarcastically, because in the face of such overwhelming uncertainty, that is the only way we can advance, and therefore we must continue.

Why sarcastically? Wouldn't you like to wave a magic wand and know things with certainty?

Re: Most types of cancer not due to “bad luck” [pdf]

#19

Post by carbocation » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 2:40 PM UTC

This document is both a political document and, to a lesser extent, a scientific one.

On the political front, the document encourages people to reject that cancer predilection is stochastic and to encourage the continued study of cancer.

The scientific component attempts to provide an underpinning to the political goal. It uses a handful of epidemiological examples, such as the climbing incidence of colorectal cancer in Japan over a genetically-insignificant timescale (which suggests an environmental factor at play).

The article fails to support its headline ('Most types of cancer not due to "bad luck"') through any scientific instrument. While its policy goal (the continued pursuit of the causes of cancer) is reasonable, nobody is saying that we now know that cancer is predominantly caused by bad luck so we should stop studying it (certainly not Vogelstein, whose career is built on the study of cancer).

Overall, it's not clear to me why this was published.

Re: Most types of cancer not due to “bad luck” [pdf]

#20

Post by calinet6 » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 2:43 PM UTC

This shows a severe misunderstanding of statistics.

The original paper (here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6217/78.abstract -- the abstract is enough to deduce the conclusion) is a simple statistical analysis of mutation probability in certain cell types. It's basically saying that many cancers are not necessarily influenced by external factors and can be predicted by nothing more than the number of cell divisions and the probability of DNA mutation compounded.

That, in itself, is a fascinating scientific result. Arguing against the statistics here is probably not a good idea, unless there was a serious error in the math or an order of magnitude error in the probability of mutation. Certainly there are other possibilities of error in the data or methodology.

But the article in opposition (OP) is doing something odd that doesn't appear to be a scientific argument: it's railing against the language and the implications of the very concept of statistical analysis applied to the problem. It's assuming that because we discovered that, perhaps, cancer has a certain probability of occurring independent of external factors, that it will somehow slow research or cause us to throw up our hands and give up on prevention strategies or research.

I don't think that's the case. Rather than understanding the absolutely fascinating statistical analysis here, the OP article comes across as reactionary and unscientific.

Assuming the data is sound, the statistical analysis is profound. Most often, statistics such as that are profoundly misunderstood as well: people have an incredible capacity for attribution bias and data disbelief. This simply underscores the need for a better education in basic statistics as well as science across the board.