Despite medical breakthroughs, cancer won’t be going away in a hurry, says robert mathews |
|
In January 1971, with the Vietnam war still raging, US President Nixon opened up a second front against an adversary far more deadly than the Vietcong: cancer. Over a third of a century later, Nixon's so-called War on Cancer looks no closer to victory than President Bush's War on Terror. It kills 10 times more Americans each year than died in Vietnam, and remains the second biggest killer in developed nations.
Some battles are going well: a diagnosis of childhood leukaemia or breast cancer is no longer the death sentence it was in Nixon's day. Even so, cancer still claims the lives of 60 per cent of the 11 million diagnosed with the disease worldwide each year.
Now some scientists are claiming the war can never be won - because of our notoriously selfish genes. As Richard Dawkins has been telling us for decades, our genes |
|
 |
 |
 |
| Our genes regard us as mere vehicles to help them survive in future generations |
|
|
regard us as mere vehicles to help them survive in future generations. Once we've reproduced, our genes no longer need us. Indeed, we are a positive waste of resources
This has prompted some scientists to claim that our genes have evolved to protect us against cancer when we are young, and then abandon us to its ravages as we age.
According to Professor Jarle Breivik, a cancer genetics expert at the University of Oslo, human genes known to combat cancer are inherently unstable, becoming increasingly error-prone as we age.
Trying to win the war against cancer thus means taking on the forces of evolution - and Prof Breivik isn't optimistic: "From what we know about evolutionary dynamics, I believe it's impossible to find a therapeutic solution to cancer."
That's not to say we humans can't win personal battles against the Big C. But we might need to be a bit more sceptical about scientists claiming total victory is just around the corner. 
FIRST POSTED APRIL 30, 2007
|
