Every year, government-run agencies issue hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for cancer-related research. Scientists who’ve applied for funding and gotten their requests approved reach out and grab a hold of this money, which they use to pursue their goal of solving the riddle that is cancer. They investigate tumor-generating processes in animal models, look into how various environmental factors shape the evolution of cancer, and try to map out the many genes, receptors, and hormones that play a role in the pathogenesis of melanoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and other cancers. Their ultimate objective is to find an effective treatment or cure for the terrible disease that is cancer.
At first glance, it may seem that these researchers have all bases covered. Upon closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that this may not be the case. Few cancer researchers look at cancer from an evolutionary perspective and ask themselves whether cancer afflicts humans who live in a natural environment.
Many recognize that cancer evolves via Darwinian selection, but few have broadened their evolutionary thinking beyond that. This arguably represents a gaping hole in modern cancer research. I don’t claim to be an expert on the molecular mechanisms of cancer; however, I do know a thing or two about evolution that I think could come in handy when it comes to elucidating why and how cancer develops, as well as what we can do to prevent and treat this disease.
The endless quest for a cure
Given that hundreds of billions of dollars and countless work hours have been put into deciphering and finding an effective treatment for cancer over the most recent decades, it’s logical to assume that we’re today a lot closer to finding a cure for breast cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and other cancers than we were 40 or 50 years ago. This assumption is today fairly widespread, in part because news reporters have a habit of putting out articles with titles such as: New research could revolutionize cancer care, A cure for cancer is on the horizon, and Soon, cancer may be history.
Unfortunately, such articles have little to no basis in reality. The harsh truth is that we haven’t really made that much progress towards effectively “curing” cancer. We’ve changed our screening methods and the way we manage the disorder; however, we certainly haven’t been able to annihilate it. Actually, in many parts of the world, cancer rates (as well as the rates of many other major diseases) have been on the rise (1), despite the fact that researchers have been working tirelessly to find an effective remedy for the “cancer situation”.
The average Joe probably finds it surprising that we haven’t made more progress in this area. The average Darwinian thinker, however, is probably not surprised. Darwinian science illuminates the fact that natural selection has equipped organisms such as ourselves with cancer-suppressing apparatus. These apparatus are very complex, in the sense that they involve the coordinated efforts of a variety of microbes, receptors, and immune cells. They are also very powerful; however, they are not incorruptible or immune to evolutionary mismatch.
The fact that these apparatus are extremely complex highlights the fact that they can’t be controlled with a single drug or some type of conventional medical device. A smoker who’s damaged the DNA of his lung cells and compromised his body’s ability to ward off cancerous lung cells can’t simply take a drug and expect things to work themselves out. He can certainly undergo chemotherapy, which kills cancer cells, but that won’t bring his body’s built-in defense systems up to full speed. In other words, from a Darwinian perspective, it’s not surprising that we haven’t found “a magic pill” that effectively counteracts or cures cancer.
How Darwinian science could change the trajectory of modern cancer research
Darwinian insights can help guide modern cancer research. They provide a basis for generating hypotheses and ideas and can help slim down the field of modern cancer research, which is, at present, arguably inflated. At present, a lot of money and resources are invested into cancer research projects that have no evolutionary basis and that are based on a premise that doesn’t conform to Darwinian science. By incorporating more evolutionary science into the paradigm that currently guides the workings of modern cancer research, that could change.
Not only can Darwinian theories help illuminate what happens inside of the body as cancer develops; they can help us determine what the ultimate causes of cancer are. The recognition that a human body that is matched with an environment that fits well with the human genetic make-up is much less likely to develop cancerous lesions than a body that is matched with an environment that matches poorly with the human genetic makeup is extremely powerful, in the sense that it can help us determine why cancer develops, and by implication, what we can do to prevent and treat cancer. By comparing the two bodies, we can potentially make some significant headway towards solving the riddle that is cancer.
Obviously, different types of cancers differ with respects to their etiology and distribution; however, they can all conform to the “rules of evolution”. Many evolutionary scientists have focused on antagonistic pleiotropy, reduced selection pressure, and life history theory as it relates to the development of cancer. That’s obviously something that’s important to consider up in all of this; however, I’d argue that mismatch theory is even more important. I think it’s a mistake to start by focusing on the aforementioned things without first looking into the distribution of cancer in nature and throughout evolution.
The evolution of cancer
In some ways, the evolution of cancer resembles the evolution of problematic bacteria that cause human illness. Let’s take C.diff for example, which has thousands of human deaths on its conscience. This bacterium is not able to proliferate inside the gut of someone who harbors a diverse, resilient colonic microbiota rich in acid-producing friendly bacteria. It only causes problems when it’s inside the body of someone who doesn’t possess a healthy microbiota, and hence, doesn’t possess a fully functional defense system against pathogens.
This is somewhat analogous to what happens in cancer. The fact that the incidence of cancer is very low among humans who live in a Paleolithic-type environment, in combination with the fact that a large body of evidence shows that immunocompromised individuals are more likely to develop cancer than healthy, immunocompetent folks (2, 3, 4, 5)., clearly suggests that cancer isn’t something that just happens out of the blue. It only develops and kills under certain conditions. This is not to say that all of the lives that cancer has claimed could have been prevented or that genetics don’t matter. All I’m saying is that it’s a lot more difficult for cancer cells to proliferate inside a healthy body than inside an unhealthy one.
I’d argue that we should shift some of the focus and efforts away from finding “a quick fix” or vaccine that’ll eliminate cancer and start devoting more attention to elucidating the evolutionary causes of cancer and finding ways to enhance the workings of the built-in cancer-suppressing apparatus that evolution has equipped the human body with. That won’t necessarily bring patients with late-stage cancers back to life; however, it can certainly aid our efforts to bring cancer rates down.
The bottom line
Despite searching long and hard, we have yet to find a cure for cancer. Perhaps it’s time we consider traveling into new, largely unexplored territories. Darwinian medicine won’t necessarily equip us with the tools we need to effectively cure mature cancers; however, it does provide us with a framework for understanding and preventing cancer, as well as developing better treatments for different cancers and enhancing the quality of life of cancer patients.
The best “cure” for cancer is to not get it in the first place. As you say, a healthy lifestyle and diet are the best preventatives and are completely within our control. Hunter-gatherer tribes may be spared, in part, due to their exposure to plentiful sunshine, whereas people in industrialized parts of the world cover up and stay inside more. It is now thought (according to some sources) that sufficient vitamin D could reduce breast cancer incidence by as much as 75 percent. I have no idea whether supplementing with D3 is as effective as natural D, but it’s certainly worth the small effort in areas that don’t get enough year-around sunlight.
I feel instinctively that restoring and strengthening the body’s immune system to optimal functioning–which is far more efficient than any drug–is the route to eradicating most cancers.It stands to reason that a healthy gut microbiome is going to mean a healthier body and a stronger, healthier immune system.
“I feel instinctively that restoring and strengthening the body’s immune system to optimal functioning–which is far more efficient than any drug–is the route to eradicating most cancers.It stands to reason that a healthy gut microbiome is going to mean a healthier body and a stronger, healthier immune system.”
I think you’re onto something 🙂
I deliberately used the word “remedy” and not “cure” in the headline to make it clear that Darwinian medicine isn’t a quick fix (e.g., a vaccine or pharmaceutical agent) for cancer. The word remedy can be used to describe something that corrects or counteracts something or a successful way of dealing with an issue. In that sense, it fits when talking about Darwinian solutions to cancer.
This article definitely caught my eye. Genetics do certainly matter. I agree with your bottom line. It gives me hope for the future.
For stage 4 cancer patients, they are hoping for a remedy that will prolong their life. I am hoping and praying for researchers to find a remedy for stage 4 and simultaneously a treatment to help earlier stage cancer patients–including my sisters–survive and not become stage 4 patients.
Some of us are genetically predisposed to developing cancer. But my family and I — and others like us — are a very small portion of the world’s population who carry genetic mutations that do so.
I am the youngest sister of three. My two older sisters were both diagnosed with breast cancer last year. We were all three found to have a rare genetic mutation. Ours is even more rare than BRCA1 or 2.
I have dodged breast cancer for the time being and hopefully it will continue that way in the future. I had a preventative mastectomy a few months ago. My oldest sister is done with her treatments. My middle sister is still undergoing chemo. She starts on a new FDA approved chemo drug this Wednesday.
In my family research since last summer, I’ve discovered several cases of different types of cancer in one side of the family. It is not confirmed that the mutation is also on that side of the family, but it is my hunch that it is.
All of this has me very curious how far back this mutation goes. Cancer has been around since ancient times. You said the number of cancers in hunter-gatherer communities is relatively few. Of those few, have any been attributed to genetic mutations?
What DOES Darwinian science say about the evolution of genetic mutations?
And yes, Shary, wouldn’t it be so nice if only we could all just not get cancer in the first place. For my sisters, aunts, and cousins, they weren’t given that luxury. I was given a gift of knowledge that enabled me to take action. There are many others just like my sisters and I with this same mutation: relatively healthy beings in whom cancer just develops because our cancer suppressor genes do not work as they should. Yet there are extremely unhealthy people who never develop cancer at all. Do they have super cancer suppressor genes and super immune systems, I wonder? Will we eventually get to a point where doctors can ‘fix’ our mutated genes? I hold onto that hope for my future generations.
.
Thanks,
Leann
I will try to keep this short. I too have done a lot of research on cancer in general. The most interesting thing to me is back in the 1960’s, a researcher concluded that cancer is actually a fungus. Cross referencing that, that is about the same time they removed mycology from the medical school curriculum. I remember listening to a mycologist lecture over 10 years ago stating he believed fungus has adapted to the human body and will become our biggest health threat. Was he right?
Fast forward to 5 years ago when my sister was diagnosed and genetic analysis of her cancer showed a fungal root to a Tibetan fungus where she had spent several summers doing charity work. The lab grew her cancer and came up with a botanical treatment with a 98% kill rate. Unfortunately, that information came too late for her.
Most papers I have read or speakers I have listened to seem to point to overall categorizing of cancer as the result of the perfect storm. You have the genetics turned on by the epigenetics and the environmental terrain of the body. The microbiome is the instrument of turning genes off and on. It is your best friend – take care of it.
My conclusions at this moment: We get cancer all the time but the immune system recognizes it and kills it. But when the body is under multiple attacks everyday being bombarded by immune stimulating factors from our environment. It can’t keep up, becomes exhausted, complacent, or suppressed and cancer cells multiple unchecked. I have pages and pages of natural botanical research and nutritional protocols on kicking cancer’s ass.
Excellent Conclusions Jacqueline. After many years of research myself I do believe you’ve captured the truth very well here. Nurture your microbiome! I lost my young sister at age 56–Perfect health –suddenly a glioblastoma. What is the AMA really giving us with their standard protocol for annual physical and blood tests? I don’t think much. Why isn’t a full Vitamin and gut flora test the standard? I bet alot of money could be saved in our health system!– not to mention alot of lives.
Thank you. I also lost my sister @ 55 to cancer. Analysis of her cancer’s DNA showed fungal root.