Home

About

Initiatives

Education

News&Posts

Blogs

Subscribe

2020SCIENCE

ABOUT

AndrewMaynardisaProfessorof
EnvironmentalHealthSciencesatthe
UniversityofMichigan,anddirectstheUM
RiskScienceCenter.Hisinterestsfocuson
effectivesciencecommunicationthe
responsibledevelopmentanduseof
emergingtechnologiesmostnotably
nanotechnologyandsyntheticbiologyand
howunderstandingriskcanhelpinform
smartdecisions.

Badluckandcancerdidthemediagetitwrong?
January2,2015
AndrewMaynard

Thechancesarethat,ifyoufollownewsarticlesaboutcancer,youll
havecomeacrossheadlineslikeMostCancersCausedByBadLuck
(TheDailyBeast)orTwothirdsofcancersareduetobadluck,study
finds(CBSNews).ThestorybasedonresearchoutofJohns
HopkinsUniversityhasgrabbedwidespreadmediaattention.Butits
alsoraisedtheireofsciencecommunicatorswhothinkthatthe
headlinesandstoriesare,inthewordsofacoupleofwriters,just
bollocks.
Withallthecoverageofthepaper,andthesubsequentcoverageofthe
coverage,Iwasinterestedinjusthowoffbasethenewsarticleswere,
andtowhatextentthiswasdowntolazyreporting.
ThepaperinquestionisVariationincancerriskamongtissuescanbe
explainedbythenumberofstemcelldivisionsbyCristianTomasetti
andBertVogelstein,publishedthismonthinthejournalScience.Atthe
heartofthepapertheauthorslookathowstemcelldivisionsindifferent
tissuescorrelatewithlifetimeriskofdevelopingcancerinthosetissues.
Thestudyshowsaclearcorrelationwiththecancertypesconsidered
thefasterthestemcellsdivideinaparticulartissue,thegreaterthe
chanceofdevelopingcancerinthattissue.
Thetworesearchersthenteaseoutthedegreethattheythinkrandom
geneticmutations,asopposedtoenvironmentalandlifestylefactors,
influencecancerrisk.Theyconcludethat,outof31cancertypes
considered,22wereprimarilyassociatedwithrandomgeneticmutations
(theycalledtheseRtumorstheRstandingforrandom),andnine
wereassociatedwithenvironmentalfactorsontopoftheserandom
mutations(deterministictumors,orDtumors).
Intheauthorswords,
WerefertotumorswithrelativelylowERS[extrariskscore]asR
tumors(RforreplicativegreenclusterinFig.2)becausestochastic
factors,presumablyrelatedtoerrorsduringDNAreplication,most
stronglyappeartoaffecttheirrisk.
Inotherwords,outofthe31cancertypesstudied,theauthorsanalysis
showedthat70%ofthemjustovertwothirdswerepredominantly

Aswellaswritingaregularcolumnforthe
journalNatureNanotechnology,Andrew
postsregularlyonhispersonalblog"2020
Science",andonTwitteras@2020science.
Healsoproducesshort(andhopefully
entertaining)educationalvideoson
understandinghealthrisksontheYouTube
channelRiskBites

CONNECT

TWITTER:@2020science
YOUTUBE:RiskBites
FACEBOOK:2020Science
LINKEDIN:ANDREWMAYNARD
EMAIL:maynarda@umich.edu

FOLLOWONTWITTER

determinedbyrandommutationsandnotenvironmentalfactorswhat
theauthorsterminthepaperasbadluck.
Theinferencethatmanycancersandevencancertypescannot
easilybepreventedbyreducingenvironmentalexposuresorchanging
lifestyles,provedtobeamediamagnet.Headlinesresultedalongthe
linesof
CancerIsMoreBadLuckThanBadBehavior,StudySays
(Bloomberg)
TwoThirdsofCancerCasesAreSimplyDowntoBadLuck
(Gizmodo)
Twothirdsofadultcancerslargelydowntobadluckratherthan
genes(TheGuardian)
Mostcancertypesjustbadluck'(BBCNews)

Tweets

Follow

Andrew Maynard
@2020science

1h

How to talk to an antivaxxer

grist.org/politics/howt via @grist
Show Summary
Andrew Maynard
@2020science

6h

How likely are you to die if you get measles?

Two analyses that challenge accepted wisdom:
riskscience.umich.edu/riskdyingcat
riskscience.umich.edu/measlesmortal

Andrew Maynard
@2020science

6h

New post: Estimating the measles mortality rate

from the 20082011 outbreak in France
riskscience.umich.edu/measlesmortal
pic.twitter.com/v6YPQCFHGy

Mostcancercasesduetobadluck'(DailyMail)
Andsomecommentatorswerentamused.
MichaelHeadforinstancetweeted

Michael Head

Follow

@michaelghead

No, media, twothirds of #cancers are not 'due to

bad luck'. Crap reporting. Again.
statsguy.co.uk/aretwothirds
9:50 AM 2 Jan 2015

Expand
Andrew Maynard
@2020science

3 Feb

Gt Paracelsus bit RT @voxdotcom: What these 5

scientific geniuses believed might surprise you
bit.ly/1HVmqLl pic.twitter.com/82TnWH7DwU

132 RETWEETS 44 FAVORITES

Inresponsetomanyoftheheadlinesandarticles,AdamJacobs(linked
tointhetweetabove)wroteonhisblogTheStatsGuy
ApaperpublishedinSciencehasbeenwidelyreportedinthemedia
today.Accordingtomediareports,suchasthisone,thepaper
showedthattwothirdsofcancersaresimplyduetobadluck,and
onlyonethirdareduetoenvironmental,lifestyle,orgeneticrisk
factors.
Thepapershowsnosuchthing,ofcourse.
concludingwith
Weknowthatlifestyleishugelyimportantnotonlyforcancer,butfor
manyotherdiseasesaswell.Forthemediatoclaimthatlifestyle
isntimportant,basedonamisunderstandingofwhattheresearch
shows,ishighlyirresponsible.
OveratTheGuardian,themediaquestioningwastakenupbyBob
OHaraandGrrlScientistundertheheadlineBadluck,badjournalism
andcancerrates.Notpullingtheirpunches,theywrote:
Thebigscience/healthnewsstorythisweekisaboutcancerrates,
withnewsoutletssplashingheadlineslikeTwothirdsofadult
cancerslargelydowntobadluckratherthangenes(forexample,
here)orMostcancertypesjustbadluck(here).(Imnoteven

Bill Duval
@Bill_Duval

3 Feb

Thought I'd watch 30 seconds, watched 15

minutes. RT @UtibeEffiongMD: My Story for
Vaccines. youtu.be/uf34pQCNEQ
Retweeted by Andrew Maynard
Show Media
Hilary Sutcliffe
@hilarysutcliffe

3 Feb

Is novelty overrated re Nanomaterials & health

risk Yes says @2020science
riskscience.umich.edu/noveltynanoma
pic.twitter.com/QefQV9IDst
Retweeted by Andrew Maynard

goingtolooktoseewhattheDailyMailhastosayaboutthis.)But
theseheadlines,andthestories,arejustbollocks.Thework,which
isveryinteresting,showednosuchthing.
Atthispointmycuriositywaspiqued(eggedonmysciencebloggerslike
EdYongwhosimilarlyquestionedthemediacoverage).Wasthisjusta
particularlyegregiouscaseofwidespreadlazyjournalism,ordidthe
storieshaveacommonroot?
Readingtheoriginalpaper,theauthorswereclearlybuildingacasefor
themajorityofthecancerstheystudiedhavingpredominantlyrandom
origins.Thisisparticularlyclearinfigure2inthepaper(seebelow)
wheretheyclustercancersintorandomversusdeterministictypes.But
thelanguageisstillsomewhatcautiousinthepaper.

Expand
Andrew Maynard
@2020science

3 Feb

ICYMI: what's the risk of dying if you catch

measles? riskscience.umich.edu/riskdyingcat
Expand
Andrew Maynard
@2020science

3 Feb

Public transport's great except when it's not!

Just realized taking the bus this evening's going
to an hour & three quarters to get home!

Utibe Effiong, MD
@UtibeEffiongMD

3 Feb

My Story for Vaccines. youtu.be/uf34pQCNEQ

#VaccinateYourKids #vaccineswork
#GrandmothersKnowBest #AntiVaxxerLogic
#MeaslesOutbreak #RWB
Retweeted by Andrew Maynard
Show Media
Cultural Cognition
@cult_cognition

3 Feb

Don't let what happened to HPV #vaccine

happen again. It's on us. tinyurl.com/olzd7jw
pic.twitter.com/aCm26ZortD

Figure2fromTomasettiandVogelstein(2015).Cancertypes
areclusteredbythosewherestochastic(replicative)factors
dominate(green),versusthosewhereenvironmentaland
inheritedfactorsaresubstantial(blue).ERStheadjustedrisk
scoreistheproductofthelifetimeriskandthetotalnumberof
stemcelldivisions(log10values).Fromthepaper:The
adjustedERS(aERS)isindicatednexttothenameofeach
cancertype.Rtumors(green)havenegativeaERSandappear
tobemainlyduetostochasticeffectsassociatedwithDNA
replicationofthetissuesstemcells,whereasDtumors(blue)
havepositiveaERS.Importantly,althoughtheaERSwas
calculatedwithoutanyknowledgeoftheinfluenceof
environmentalorinheritedfactors,tumorswithhighaERS
provedtobepreciselythoseknowntobeassociatedwiththese
factors.
TheassociatedpressreleasefromJohnsHopkinsUniversityismore
direct.UndertheheadlineBadLuckofRandomMutationsPlays
PredominantRoleinCancer,StudyShows,thepressreleasestates
By[theauthors]measure,twothirdsofadultcancerincidence
acrosstissuescanbeexplainedprimarilybybadluck,
Atthispoint,thepressreleaseisreferringtotherolethatrandomevents
playindeterminingwhetheracancerwilldevelop.Asthe
releaseclarifies,
Usingstatisticaltheory,thepaircalculatedhowmuchofthevariation
incancerriskcanbeexplainedbythenumberofstemcelldivisions,
whichis0.804squared,or,inpercentageform,approximately65
percent.
Inotherwords,theyconcludethatrandomgeneticmutationbadluck
asstemcellsdivideisanimportantfactorunderlyingthenumbersof

Retweeted by Andrew Maynard

Expand

Tweet to @2020science

SUBSCRIBETOWEBSITE
Pleaseenteryouremailaddresstoreceive
notificationsofnewRiskScienceCenter
postsbyemail.
EmailAddress

Subscribe

LATESTPOSTS

RiskScienceCenter2020Science

Measlesmortalityrates20082011
outbreak,FranceFebruary4,2015

cancercasesobservedandasaresultthelifetimeriskofdeveloping
cancer.

Whatistheriskofdyingifyoucatch
measles?February3,2015

Thereleasegoesontonote:

Isnoveltyinnanomaterialsoverrated
whenitcomestorisk?February2,2015

Finally,theresearchduoclassifiedthetypesofcancerstheystudied
intotwogroups.Theystatisticallycalculatedwhichcancertypeshad
anincidencepredictedbythenumberofstemcelldivisionsand
whichhadhigherincidence.Theyfoundthat22cancertypescould
belargelyexplainedbythebadluckfactorofrandomDNA
mutationsduringcelldivision.Theotherninecancertypeshad
incidenceshigherthanpredictedbybadluckandwerepresumably
duetoacombinationofbadluckplusenvironmentalorinherited
factors.
Thisdirectlymirrorsthefindingspresentedinthepaperthatofthe
cancersstudied,70%werelargelyexplainablebyrandommutations
duringcelldivision.
Comparingthistotheheadlinesabove,themediaarticles,releaseand
paperalignsurprisinglywell.Badluckistheauthorsphrase,andthey
doemphasizethedominanceofrandomgeneticeventsinthemajority
ofcancers,andcancercases.
Inthisrespect,itshardtobetootoughononthemediacoverage
sure,someofthestatsmayhavegotalittletwisted,butthedominant
messageseemstohaveitsrootsinthepaperandtheinstitutional(and
authorsanctioned)pressrelease.
Soisthereaproblemhere,orhavethemediaactuallydonegood,
contrarytoperceptionsfromsomequarters?
Frommyreadingofthepaper,thepressreleaseandthemedia
coverage,thisisntasstraightforwardasitmightseem.Certainly,it
seemsthatmanyreportersmadeanhonestefforttofaithfullyrepresent
whattheauthorsweresaying.Andyet,sciencereportingismorethan
justreportingthefactsitsalsocontextualizingthosefactsinawaythat
isusefultoreadersandsocietymoregenerally.
GoingbacktoAdamJacobspiece,itsworthrepeatinghisconclusion:
Weknowthatlifestyleishugelyimportantnotonlyforcancer,butfor
manyotherdiseasesaswell.Forthemediatoclaimthatlifestyle
isntimportant,basedonamisunderstandingofwhattheresearch
shows,ishighlyirresponsible.
Ifyoutakethestanceashedoesthatenvironmentalandlifestyle
factorsarecriticaltodetermininggoodandbadhealth(andasapublic
healthprofessor,itsastanceIamprofessionallyexpectedtotake),
newsarticlesthatimplywedontneedtoworrysomuchaboutthe
pollutionweemit,thechemicalsweexposepeopletoorthewaywelive
ourlives,canbeseenashighlyirresponsibleunlessbackedupbyrock
solidevidence.Theyopenthedoortoanabdicationofresponsibility
whenitcomestoenvironmentalhealth.Whyspendafortuneon
preventingenvironmentalemissionswhentheydontmatter?Why
undergocripplinglyexpensiveproductsafetytestingifingredientsdont
reallycausecancer?Whysupportinconvenientregulatoryagenciesif
alltheydoiscripplecommercewithoutpreventingcancerandother
diseases?
Thisisavalidfear,backedupbyalonghistoryofenvironmentalhealth
disasters.Anditsafearthatrequiresresearchersandresearch
institutionstotakeatleastsomeresponsibilityforhowtheypitchand

Emergingtechnologiesmustbe
developedresponsiblyJanuary22,2015
WorldEconomicForumhighlightsrisksof
emergingtechnologiesJanuary15,2015

MOREFROM2020SCIENCE

RECENTARTICLES
2020SCIENCEARCHIVE,2014
2020SCIENCEARCHIVE,20072013

promotetheirwork.
Inthecaseofthispaper,itshardtoseeclearevidenceofbadreporting.
Thereisalackofbalanceandcontextualizationthoughthat,itseems,
hasitsrootsintheoriginalpaper.
Thisisnotacriticismofthepaper.Butitsveryeasyforthesignificance
ofresearchthatbeginstochallengethestatusquotobeinappropriately
amplifiedinthemedia.AsInotedinarecentarticleinNature
nanotechnology,
whensurprisingnewinsightsemergeonpossiblematerialhealth
risks,wheredoestheresponsibilitylieforensuringthatnew
researchisconductedonmaterialsafety,withoutthisresearch
influencingconsumersandregulatorsbeforethereisplausible
justificationforaction?Ortoputitmoresuccinctly,howcanwe
encourageexploratoryriskresearchwithoutitprematurelyimpacting
consumerandregulatorydecisions?
Thisreferstoresearchonengineerednanomaterials,butthepointis
justasrelevanthere:itsextremelyeasyforexploratoryresearchtotake
ontheauraofauthoritative,actionableknowledgethroughthelensof
themedia.
Sowheredoesresponsibilitytotempersuchamplificationlie?Clearly
thereneedstoberesponsiblereportingateverypointinthe
communicationchain.Butbytheverynatureofamplification,careis
neededatthesourceofastorytohelpensurethatthefinalreportingis
bothaccurateandresponsible(anissueIlookatmorecloselyhere)
Inthiscase,itwasperhapsinevitablethatresearchindicating
environmentalfactorsmaynotbeasimportantaspreviouslythoughtin
causingcancerwouldleadtojustbadluckheadlines.Butthose
headlinesdrawexplicitlyonthelanguageusedinthepaperandthe
pressrelease.
Wouldthemediacoveragehavebeendifferentiftheworkwaspitched
differently?ItshardtotellbutinthisinstanceIdcertainlybehesitant
toputalltheblameonbadjournalism.
Paper:Variationincancerriskamongtissuescanbeexplainedbythe
numberofstemcelldivisions(2015)
CristianTomasettiandBertVogelstein.Science,Vol.347no.6217pp.
7881DOI:10.1126/science.126082
UpdatedJanuary4toincludeFigure2fromTomasettiandVogelstein
(2015)
Sharethispost:

onTwitter

onFacebook

RelatedPosts:

Researchers
shouldtakemore
responsibilityfor
exaggerationin
pressreleases

DoesBadLuck
CauseMost
Cancersin
Nigeria?

Buildingtrust
between
academicsand
journalists

onGoogle+

38comments Taggedwith:badluck,Cancer,Environment,Media,
reporting in2020Science,Chemicals,EnvironmentalHealth
Comments(38)

January2,2015at7:19pm /

Timberati

Thanks,Andrew.ThereportIsawintheDailybeastthismorningsaidtheauthorshada
largecaveatforsmokinganditslinktolungcancer.
So,recognizingthisissomethingofaoneoff,theauthorsseemtosaythatwhile
environmentalfactorshaveanaffect,thesemaybeonlyonethirdoftherisk?

AndrewMaynard

January2,2015at8:25pm /

Yestheyclearlysaythatinsomecasesenvironmentalfactorsareimportantthesearethe
cancerswheretheirbadluckpredictionsdonthold.

DavidColquhoun

January3,2015at5:31am /

Ifearthattheinternetattackdogswentforthewrongvictiminthiscase.Thepaperadds
weighttosimilarestimatesforthecontributionofchancethathavebeenaroundforyears,
butwhichtheauthorsofalltheattacksseemtobeunaware.PleasereadGeorgeDavey
SmithsexcellentJohnSnowlectureforagoodsummary.
Imbaffledbytheindignationengenderedbysuggestionthatchanceplaysabigpartin
yourfate.Lifeisstochastic,toquitealargeextent.Ontwitter,AliceRobertsmadean
interestinganalogy.
ProfAliceRoberts@DrAliceRoberts
@david_colquhounImstruckbysimilarityinresistancetoacceptingroleofchanceinour
individuallives&healthandinevolution
Itsoddthatthesceptics,inthiscase,arebehavingabitlikecreationists,orthosewho
believethatitsyourownfaultifyougetill.

AndrewMaynard

January3,2015at5:56am /

ThanksforthecommentsDavidamincludingthelinktoGeorgeDaveySmithspaper:
http://www.dcscience.net/DaveySmith2011.pdf
Beyondquestionsofblamehere,therearetwodeeplyrootednarrativesthathavebeen
touchedinthisdialogue:
1.Badcompanies,badpeopleandbadactionscausecancerand
2.Themediacynicallysensationalizeandmisreportscience
Isuspectthat,becauseofthis,thecoveragehasraisedirebecauseitseemstochallenge#1
andseemstosupport#2.Andwhatwegetasaresultisadiscussionaboutdogmas,not
data.

DavidColquhoun

January3,2015at6:14am /

Themediacynicallysensationalizeandmisreportscience
WhilenottryingtoexoneratetheDailyMailfrommisreportingscience,Ifearthatthetruth
isworsethanthat.Inmanycases,itisthepressreleasefromthejournal,orfromthe
universityPRdepartmentthatsensationalisesthescience(andsincetheauthorswill
normallyapprovethesereleases,theymustacceptsomeoftheblame).Ihavegiven
severalexamplese.g.at
http://www.dcscience.net/2014/11/02/twomorecasesofhypeinglamourjournals
magnetscocoaandmemory/
Inthisparticularcase,though,Imontheotherside.IwasastonishedwhenAdam
JacobsmadetheassertionWeknowthatlifestyleishugelyimportantnotonlyfor
cancerbecausethatispreciselywhatwedontknow(andIwaspleasedtogetthe
supportoftheoncologistandskeptic,DavidGorski,onthat).Inordertojustifythisclaim,
hechoseoneofthepapersthatIdpreviouslysingledoutasbeingoneofthemost
ghastlyhypeddietpapersIdencountered.Seethediscussionat
http://www.statsguy.co.uk/aretwothirdsofcancersreallyduetobadluck/

michaelkenward

January3,2015at11:43am /

ThankyouDavidColquhounforcommentingfromthesanersideofthisfeedingfrenzy.
ThefirstattackonthemediathatIsawcamefromsomeonewhodidnotevenbothertotell
theirreadersthatmuchofthehypeandoverstatementtheycomplainedofinthemedia
coverageofthispaperwasinthepressreleasethatheraldedthepublicationinthejournal
Science,itselfapowerfulPRmachine.Asyousaid,itishighlyunlikelythatthispressrelease
gotoutwithoutresearcherclearance.
EventheabstractinSciencecontainedsomeofthecrimesagainsthumanitythatsoupset
therabidhordes.No,theevilscribblersdidnotsuddenlyconjureupthebadluckbit.
Itisinterestingthatmanyofthescientificexpertswhoweighedinfailedtodowhatthey
demandofjournalists,digabitdeeperandfindtheevidencetosupportyourstory.Iwonder
howmanyofthecriticsdidwhatIdidwhenafirstsawtheircomplaints,whichwastorushoff
tothesourceofthestorytoseewhatithadsaid.Thatimmediatelytoldmethatmanyflawsin
thereportingowedmoretothesourcesthantothejournalists.
Butwhybothertodiluteyourbilewithfactswhenitismuchmoreconvenienttohammer
awaywiththesametiredoldmediadoesntgetscienceline?Whynotbehavejustlikethe
rightlyloathedand,assomeoneelsehassaid,possiblycarcinogenic,DailyMail,andwrite
somethingthatfitsyourownagendaratherthanthefacts?
Icantbebotheredtoploughthroughallthetoshoutthereonthisone,soIhavenotfound
outifthereareanycommentsaboutthepeerreviewofthepaper,inparticular,ofthe
statisticalanalysis.Givendodgystatisticsisuptherewithplagiarismandcookedupdata
whenitcomestoretractedpapersIjustmadeupthatstatisticitisabitrichtocriticise
journalists,assomeofthecommentshave,fornotbeingexpertsinstatistics.
Therearemanystoriesouttherewherejournalistsdogetthingswrong.Byconstantly

gunningforstoriesthatowemuchtothetenoroftheoriginalmaterial,thetwitterlooniesfall
intothecryingwolfcamp.
Now,hadtheycriticisedthemediaforchurnalism,parrotinggarbagefedtothembyaPR
machine,Imighthavejoinedinthefunandgames.

January3,2015at10:24am /

Timberati

Iwontbeabletosaythisquiteright,statistically,butthisrandomnessisthen(partof)the
reasonwhycancersshowuplaterinlife.Yes?Morethrowsofthedice,sotospeak.

AndrewMaynard

January3,2015at10:26am /

Thiswouldmakesenseiftheprobabilityofgeneticmutationscorrelateswithcelldivisions
themoredivisioncycles,thegreaterthecumulativechanceofaharmfulmutationoccurring

KatherineK.Moore

January3,2015at2:47pm /

whatIfindinterestingishowpeoplerespondtocancernews,asthoughthatistheONLY
badnewsthatoccursinhealthcare?Manypeople,includingmanymanyhealthcare
providersconsidercancertojustbetheworst,butreallymostchronicdegenerative
diseasesareprettyawfulandmostofthemappeartobeduetorandomluckaswellI
supposeitcomesdowntowewillalldieofsomething.

KatherineK.Moore

January3,2015at2:48pm /

butnoonewantstobelievethat.

BradleyJ.Fikes

January3,2015at3:59pm /

HiAndrew,
Imoneofthereporterswhowroteaboutthestory.Thankyouforanevenhandedlookat
thestudy,thepressrelease,andmediareports.OneobservationIdaddisthatthe
impendingNewYearsholidayprobablymadeithardtogetindependentevaluations.(It
certainlydidinmycase,althoughIeventuallysucceeded).
AdamJacobsmadeamisleadingstatementabouttherandommutationriskhypothesis
aspresentedinthestudy:
Theproblemisthatitappliesonlytoexplainingthevariationincancerriskfromone
tissuetoanother.Ittellsusnothingabouthowmuchoftheriskwithinagiventissueis
duetomodifiablefactors.Youcouldpotentiallyseeexactlythesameresultswhether
eachspecifictypeofcancerstruckcompletelyatrandomorwhethereachspecifictype
werehugelyinfluencedbyenvironmentalriskfactors.
Buttheauthorsaddressedthispoint,throughtheERSmethodyouquotedabove.Maybe
theERSmethodisflawed,butJacobsblogpostdoesntevenacknowledgeitsexistence,

letaloneattempttorefuteit.
Themediareportsusuallystressedthatevenaonethirdriskfromenvironmentalfactors
isstillsignificant.SoJacobsclosingline:Forthemediatoclaimthatlifestyleisnt
important,basedonamisunderstandingofwhattheresearchshows,ishighly
irresponsible,issimplyfalse.EvenJacobslinktotheIndependentarticleonthestudy
beliesthatstatement.
Best,
Bradley

DavidColquhoun

January3,2015at7:27pm /

Thankstoyou,andtoMichaelKenwardfordefusingsomeofthehysteria.
Ihaventseenyourreport,butitsoundsfromyourcommentthatyouvedelveddeeperthan
manyofthecritics.
Imquitebaffledaboutwhythereshouldbesuchastrongreactionagainsttheideathat
chanceplaysasubstantialroleinyourfate.That,afterall,ishowevolutionworks.Andthe
ideawasformulatedquiteclearlybynoneotherthanRichardPetoin1977.

BradleyJ.Fikes

January3,2015at8:10pm /

Ithinkthereactionstemsfromafearthatthepublicwillbehaveirresponsiblyiftold
chanceplaysapredominantroleincancer.Whilethatmayormaynotbetrue,itsa
separateissuethanthestudysscientificvalidity.Justbecauseascientist
personallydislikeshowastudymaybeinterpretedisnotanargumentagainstits
accuracy.
ThestudyitselfincludesstatementslikeThus,thestochasticeffectsofDNA
replicationappeartobethemajorcontributortocancerinhumans.Thatdoesnt
say2/3ofallcancerscomefromrandommutation,ofcourse.Idliketoseethat
questionspecificallytackled,usingthestudydata,togettheproportionmore
preciselyquantified.Whilethepressreleasedidgivethe2/3numberasapplying
toallcancers,Irecognizethatsnoexcuse.
PZMyersgaveathoughtfullookathowthestudycanbeusedtoimprovecancer
preventionandcare:j.mp/pzmyerscancer

AndrewMaynard

January4,2015at3:35pm /

ThanksBradleyfrommyexperienceitshardtogettimelyacademicinput/commentatthe
bestoftimescantimaginetheadditionalchallengesoftryingoveraholidayperiod!

MichaelKenward

January4,2015at8:17pm /

Indeed.Notrelatedtothisparticularsaga,Ihaveknownresearcherstoputouta
pressreleaseandthentodisappearforalongvacationwithoutleavingcontact
details.Dothatandyouhavenogroundstocomplainaboutsloppycoverage.
Inoticedthatoneofthemorethoroughjournalisticarticlesonthepaper
appearedinScienceitself.Iassumethatthewriterhadearlieraccesstothepaper
thanlessermortals.

Pingback:Cancer:justbadluck?|AMSNewcastle

January3,2015at10:01pm /

Jy

Makesmewonderiftheyeverevaluatedstochasticratesofcellmutationastheresponse
variableandtheenvironmentalvariablesasthecovariatesintheirregression.
Inother
words,whatpercentofthislabelledbadluckisexplainedbyenvironmentalvariables?
Aretheseseeminglyrandommutationsperhapsdependent,toahighextent,on
environmentalvariables?

LDP

January5,2015at1:26am /

Iwaswonderingmuchthesamething.Dotheydeterminerandomnessvsenvironmental
factorsthroughcellularisolationfromexposurestoexternalradicalsandsoon?Howdoes
thiswork?

DavidColquhoun

January4,2015at5:14am /

@BradleyJ.Fikes
ThanksverymuchfordrawingmyattentiontoPZMyersblogonthistopic.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/01/03/cancerbadgenesorbadluck/
ItsthebestpieceIvereadonthetopic.

VanyaLoroch

January4,2015at7:08am /

IsntoneoftheunderlyingproblemsintheinterpretationoftheresultsofVogelsteinand
Tomasettisworktheverydefinitionofcancer?Foramedicaldoctor,cancermeans
metastaticdisease(oratleastdiseasethathasahighprobabilityofbecoming
metastatic).Thisisaclinical,reductionistdefinition.Buttoaddressthequestionofthe
originsofcancer,oneneedstobroadenthisdefinitiontobiology.Andthisisacompletely
differentstory,muchmorefuzzy,muchmorecomplexandusuallyaverylongone.Just

thinkaboutinsitutumors,alltheundiagnosedcancers,spontaneousremissions,etc.
VogelsteinandTomasettionlylookedatclinicallydiagnosedneoplasms,thevisibletipof
theplasmsiceberg.Butthecausesofcancerareburiedinthehugeinvisiblepart.And
thereisonethingweknowforsurenow:thepredominantprotectiveroleplayedbythe
immunesystem(thespectacularresultsobtainedbynontargetedimmunotherapies
illustratethiswell).Wealsoknowthatthestateoftheimmunesystemdependsstrongly
onenvironmentalandbehavioralfactors.
Ifso,isntthestatusoftheimmunesystemTHEMAJORlinkbetweenenvironmentand
behaviorandtheriskofcancer?
VogelsteinandTomasettisworkdidnotlookatanyofthis.ThisisOK,Iguessbecause
thescopeofthepaperisquitelimited.Butthemessagerelayedbythemediaiswrong
anddangeroussinceitdevaluespreventionandhealthpromotion.
Itslikesayingthatthemoretimesanairplanetakesoffandlands,thehighertheriskof
crashing.Andtoremainaliveweneedtofly,Ofcourseitstrue.Butitsaverypartial
view,becausewhatpreventsairplanecrashesareALSOalltheothersmalleraccidents
thatbuilduptoairdisasters.VogelsteinandTomasettisworkonlylookedatcrash
statistics.
Thanksforreadingmylongcomment.

JG

January6,2015at2:34am /

Oneshallnotignoreabouttheinfluenceofgrantsprovidersandlackofdatavalidation
withinthecashstrappedresearchcommunities.Weshouldnotblamethemediafor
doingwhatauniversitylikeJ.H.shouldnothavedone,i.e.,throwawaytheprinciplesof
furtherscientificdiscussionforthesakeofPR.Asithashappenedinmanycasesinthe
past,thesamePRmaycomebacktothemaseggsonthefaceoftheirreputation.
Cancerhasmanyfaces,andevenastoday,noonecansaysimplybecauseithappensin
certainpartsofbodythatisnecessarythesamethingfurtherawayfromevenbeinga
type.
Aretheauthorssurethestatistical/mathematicalmodelstheyhaveusedisthefinal
verdictwithinthescientificcommunitiesbothaliveandinthefuture[ifyes,whytheykeep
printingnewtextswithnoendtothem?]Or,arethecellbiologistsjobisdoneby
simplifyingallkindsofcelldivisionsunderasinglebiologicalsystem?
Onethingatruescientistmustknowisinanyanalysis,thenullhypothesisprovidesno
guarantythatherorhisresultsareright!Andthatisevenifthevalidityofdataarekosher.
Andbytheway,lifeitselfisarandomphenomenawithinarandommedium,influenced
byrandomambientthatisconstantlyinfusedbyrandomenvironmentalfactorscoming
fromrandomdirections.Itistheheightofstupiditytotryexplainrandombyadefinite
number.

Pingback:Links1/6/15|MiketheMadBiologist

Pingback:CancerandBadluck:BadScienceand/orBadJournalismand/oruncriticalacceptance|
StealthRacism

FrankSchauder

January7,2015at2:56pm /

Thakyouforthecommentsonthepaperandtheresultingmediaheadlines.Butevenif
2/3oftheexamined31cancertypesseemtodependonrandom(genetic)effectsa
statementsuchasTwoThirdsofCancerCasesAreSimplyDowntoBadLuckissimply
wrongandclearlymisleading.Theincidenceofeachcancerhastobeetakenin
consideration(breast,colon,prostatecancerisbefarmorefrequentthanduodenum
cancer).

Pingback:RiskScienceCenterBadluckcausesmostcancers?Nigeriansknowthat!

Steve

January11,2015at6:01pm /

Whatdotheauthorssayabouttheroleoftheimmunesystemininfluencingwhethera
cancerousmutation,onceithasoccurred,developsintoalifethreateningtumor?After
all,oneofthefunctionsoftheimmunesystemistodestroycancerouscellsbeforethey
growintolargetumors.Andmuchresearchhasshownthatenvironment,lifestyle,and
geneticshaveabigeffectontheefficacyoftheimmunesystem.Sowhileitmightbethe
casethatmanycancercellsarecreatedbychance,surelyhealthbehaviors,the
environment,andgeneticsstillhaveanimportantrole,mediatedthroughtheimmune
system,indetermininghowdeadlythosecancersbecome.Ifthatsright,thenthe
headline2/3ofcancersarerandomshouldnotbeinterpretedas2/3oflifethreatening
cancersarerandom.Rathertheheadlineshouldbe2/3ofcancerousmutationsdevelop
bychance.

Paulcatherall

January12,2015at6:33pm /

WellsaidSteve,with60trillioncellstherearealwayscellsnotformingcorrectly.The
progressionfromatransformedcelltoafullblowntumourcellisnotinstant.Agenetic
predispositiontoacancercanbeviewedasjuststartingfurtheralongthelineof
transformation.Theimmunesystemincludestransformedcellsselfdestructingorbeing
destroyedbyneighbouringcells.Thissignallingisimportanttounderstandandis
influencedbyenvironmentalfactors.Oneimportantexampleistheoldesthormone
systemofthebodycalledEicosanoids,whichisthesignallinggatewaytotheimmune
system.HarvardmedicalschoolquoteEicosanoidsmayrepresentamissinglink
betweeninflammationandcancerandthuscouldserveastherapeutictarget(s)for
inhibitingtumorgrowth.OneformofEicosanoidiscalledResolvinsandthesecanonly
bemadefrom20carbon(longchain)omega3andtheseendtheinflammatorycycle.
Thismechanismisadverselyimpactedbyexcessiveomega6,transfats,andhighinsulin
levelswhichcanbecontrolled.

Pingback:ActwithLoveBlog|ResearchWorthWatching:BadLuckandStemCells

DavidHammond

January14,2015at3:52pm /

Idontgethowtheauthoristryingtosaythatthepressmisrepresentedtheauthors?
TheyCLEARLYstatedthatbadluckisalargefactor.Sohowisreportingthisback
suchacrime?Itswhattheysaidthemselves!

Furthermore,whattheauthorofthisarticlemissesisthattheconclusionofthisstudyisa
completejoke.Itispurescientificlazinesstosaythattwothirdsofcancerarecausedby
badluck.WhydontwetackonthewrathofGodwhilewereatit?Basically,the
scientistshavehitawallwheretheycannolongerexplainsomething.Yetunlikeevery
legitimatescientistinhistorywheretheysimplyadmittheydontknowandthen
continueresearchingthesepeopleinsteadsaythattheydohavetheanswerand
itsduetobadluck.
Sowhatexactlyisthescientificdefinitionofbadluck?
AndhowonEarthisbadlucknowconsideredtobealegitimate,measurablescientific
influence?Didtheyeverconsiderthatperhapsemotionalwellbeingmayprovidekey
links?
Thisissobeyondabsurdyouhonestlycouldntmakeitup.Wakeuppeople.Yourebeing
duped.

DavidColquhoun

January14,2015at6:37pm /

Imafraidthatyouhavenocomprehensionatallofrandomprocesses(inthiscaserandom
errorsinDNAreplication).Atthelevelofsinglemolecules,everythingisrandom.Ithink
perhapsyoushouldreadupaboutstochasticprocessesbeforegettingsoindignant.

DavidHammond

January15,2015at1:32pm /

Nothingisrandominthisuniverse.Everythingisbasedoncauseandeffect,
whetherwehappentounderstandityetornot.Electrons,forexample,actas
particleswhenobservedwithacamera.However,whennoequipmentobserves
theelectrons,theyactaswavesandparticlessimultaneously.Soevensimple
observationchangesthings.Butwhowouldknowthisifithadntbeendetermined
throughscience?Ifithadntbeen,someonewouldcomealongandcallitrandom
luck,simplybecausetheydontknow.Itisonethingtosaythatyoudont
understandacausetoaneffect,andquiteanothertosaythatyoudoknow,and
thatisbecauseofluck.Imsorry,butthatsjustabsurd.ThatisNOTscience.
Factoringinluck,somethingthathasnoscientificdefinitionwhatsoever,is
absolutelyirresponsibleatbest,andfraudulentatworst.Everythingisbasedon
causeandeffect,whetherwehappentounderstandityetornot.

DavidColquhoun

January15,2015at6:13pm /

Notagoodexample.Everyindividualelectronmovesrandomly.I
suggestsomereadingaboutBrownianmotion,oraboutstatistical
mechanics.
Thingslooksmoothonlywhenaveragedoverlargenumbersofparticles.

mars

January17,2015at3:53am /

David,
Itdependswhatmeaningisgiventorandom.Ifyoumean,not
predictable,thensure,manyphysicalprocessesaredeeply
random.Butthatkindofrandomnessisanepistemicmatter,
ratherthananontologicalone.Inthatsenserandomnessisa
contingentfactaboutourknowledge(and,beyondthat,our
cognitivelimitations),ratherthanafactaboutnatureingeneral.
Butifbyrandomyoumeannotcaused,thenIthinkthe
discussionmovesontoamorephilosophicalterrainGod
doesntplaydice,thatkindofthinginwhichwewouldhaveto
getsomeaccountofwhatwemeanbycausation.Isuspectthe
conceptofrandomnessthatMr.Hammondisobjectingtoisthe
ontologicaloneratherthantheepistemicone.ButIalsosuspect
thatwhattheauthorsmeanbyrandomisnotnotcausedbut
notpredictableinawaythatcouldleadtomeaningful
intervention.
Mars

Pingback:BadLuckandStemCells|UltraDrift

Pingback:BadLuckandStemCells|PinoriaNews

Pingback:BadLuckandStemCells|SkyMeteor

Pingback:BadLuckandStemCells|OmahaSunTimes

Pingback:BadLuckandStemCellsMyWeightLossBlog|MyWeightLossBlog

1415WashingtonHeights,Ann
Arbor48108,Tel:7346153050,
Emailriskscience@umich.edu

2013RegentsoftheUniversityofMichigan|SchoolofPublicHealth

Tosearchtypeandhitenter