Anthonares

Chapters 10 and 11 of Tom Bethell’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science follow two nearly content-less chapters that I discussed in the Chapters 8 and 9 review. In 10 and 11, Bethell introduces his readers to the Human Genome Project (HGP) and three decades of cancer research. These two chapters, perhaps more than any others in the book so far, reveal Bethell’s fundamental distrust for the establishment of science, and his misinterpretation of its practitioners.

You will notice that my summary of Bethell’s points is shorter and my response longer than in past chapters. This is because the theme of Bethell’s work is becoming more clear, so I have to spend more time addressing the manner in which Bethell approaches and misrepresents his subject. The sloppy journalism and woeful scientific reasoning that Bethell presents have been tailored to mislead and advance his ideas, while poorly summarizing those he opposes.

Summary of Bethell’s Points:
Chapter 10: The Human Genome Project
I will keep this chapter summary extremely brief, because it really only has one main argument that goes as follows: 1) Genetic engineering (the replacement of genes within living creatures) has so far yielded almost no treatments in humans, despite nearly 30 years of research, 2) The HGP revealed that we had far fewer genes (~25,000) than had been thought. But to explain the number of proteins thought to exist in each human (~300,000), some new mechanisms of genetic complexity must exist. 3) Genetic engineering will never succeed, since it underestimated the difficulty of its task due to fundamental lack of knowledge in the past. Therefore, the HGP has been a total failure since it has not produced any medical breakthroughs in the 2-4 years since its completion.

Chapter 11: “The Great Cancer Error”
In this chapter, Bethell’s line of reasoning is as follows: 1) The national “War on Cancer” has been ongoing since 1971, but mortality rates as a fraction of the population have not decreased, while the number of cancer cases has actually increased. 2) The main theory of cancer formation has been that a series of mutations within a cell’s genetic code allows it to become cancerous. 3) This theory has not produced any miraculous breakthroughs thus far. Therefore, it must be incorrect, and the government-funded NIH and its National Cancer Institutes have been the corrupt establishment forces behind the theory’s continued funding. 4) A thus far completely hypothetical theory, based on a genetic mistake called aneuploidy, is probably the real cause of cancer. Aneuploidy means the possession of a non-standard number of chromosomes (46 in a healthy, or diploid, cell). Most cancers, not all, are aneuploid, thus this means that aneuploidy is the cause of cancer.

My Response:
These two chapters, and particularly chapter 11, suffer terribly from lack of sourcing of vitally important information. This recurrent problem is one of the major failings of Bethell’s work, and as I’ve mentioned before, hints at an agenda of obfuscation. All of the sources necessary to find the work of Bethell’s pet scientists or journalists are there, but very few of those against whom he is arguing are given.

Chapter 10: The HGP: government-funded basic science research at its best
Bethell is absolutely right that scientists underestimated the difficulty of genetic engineering. They had assumed that, since many diseases appear to have genetic origins, and that some of them can be attributed to to a single (or a few) mutated gene(s), that most (if not all) such diseases could be cured by fixing their genes. Scientists had thought that the fundamental problem (before the HGP showed otherwise), was in how to deliver the correct gene to enough cells in the body to cure the disease. Our immune systems tended to treat any attempts to virally-insert corrected DNA as an unwanted invasion, and thus would destroy our beneficial viral delivery agents.

Now that we have decoded the humane genome, we know that a whole lot more stands in the way of genetic engineering than simply our own immune systems. It appears that each protein in our body is not produced by a unique gene, but by combinations of genes in most cases. There must be mechanisms in the genome that control this whole process that we do not yet understand. Therefore, only the simplest of genetic diseases stand to be cured by our previous attempts at genetic engineering. Now we must understand not only our genome (the record of all of our genes), but our proteome (the complete list of proteins our bodies make), and our transcriptome (a subset of our genome that is active, or switched on, at any given time).

The HGP provided this enormous revolution that has exposed our own ignorance. Bethell views this as a condemnation of the whole attempt, and as evidence of the wastefulness of the $2 billion the government spent on the project. In this he is utterly incorrect.

The HGP exposed our ignorance, yes, but in doing so provided us with a clearer path to the truth. Thus, the HGP is a fantastic example of the best aspects of the scientific process. Even though egos were bruised, and overly-speculative genetic-engineering startups went under, the HGP has forcibly cleared away some of the roadblocks impeding success. Now, thanks to the HGP, we can start down the path that will lead us closer to the cures that have been sought for so long.

And what if we still don’t know enough after we’ve spent decades on this type of research? Does this mean that the attempt is altogether flawed? Of course not. It means that the single most complex thing that humanity has ever encountered, its own body and intelligence, will remain a puzzle for a bit longer. The HGP has taken us one enormous step further in understanding this complexity, but it may take the work of generations to fully appreciate its effect.

Chapter 11: Bethell’s Great Cancer Error
It is completely untrue that in 30 years we have not made gains in our efforts to fight cancer. Cancer mortality rates in a host of cancers have dropped considerably over the intervening decades, while other types of cancer mortality have increased. So, there has been some progress, but it also seems that some types of cancer are becoming more prevalent and more dangerous. Bethell ascribes these successes to earlier diagnosis and removal of smaller tumors. This may be true to some degree, but there are a range of other techniques that have proven themselves effective, and new cancer “designer” drugs are in the pipeline all of the time that are beginning to prove themselves extremely effective at targeting certain types of cancers.

But, our treatments of cancer have not yielded the panacea that we all hoped for. And perhaps this is the driving force behind Bethell’s criticism. If I can read in between his lines, perhaps he is saying that since we have not figured out how to stop cancers from forming we’ve misunderstood the mechanism by which cancers arise. He doesn’t make this statement in his chapter, but it would have been a reasonable observation. Importantly, all of our cancer drugs focus on either trying to disrupt the processes by which cancers spread or selectively destroying cancer cells, and are thus treatments, not prevention.

This argument is completely valid, and is impossible at this time to prove or disprove. Bethell, however, treats the lack of success as proof of its permanent failure, which is false reasoning. He then puts forth a theory that he personally believes explains cancer formation that is championed largely by a single individual, Peter Deusberg (the Wikipedia entry is flagged as potentially being not neutral, as Deusberg is a fairly controversial person) who has brought aneuploidy back to the attention of the cancer research community.

The theory that aneuploidy causes cancer goes as follows: having (generally) more chromosomes leads to fundamental malfunction of the cell’s internal correction mechanisms, thus cancer can develop. Aneuploidy-caused cancers need not necessarily have resulted from mutations of the genome, but perhaps result from purely random chance mistakes due to the complex nature of mitosis (cell-division). However, there is no evidence to back up the assertion that aneuploidy is the cause of cancer.

Just because it is present in most cancers does not imply causation of cancer. It may very well be the result of genetic mutation, and it also may be the actual process by which cancers develop but not necessarily the cause (research on this is extremely preliminary, but this idea was suggested by Christoph Lengauer in the 18 November 2004 issue of Nature). Either way, if aneuploidy is the ultimate cause of cancer, that would be wonderful for science and medicine.

It is interesting to note that Bethell spends so much time emphasizing how Duesberg has been ostracized by the scientific community, he does not mention the stunts and publicity that Deusberg has sought in promoting his ideas on the causes of AIDS. Deusberg offered to infect himself with HIV to prove his point. Such offers strike scientists as the mark of a charlatan who, unable to prove his point with the tools of his profession, resorts to stunts to try and gain public approval. Bethell asserts (and does not mention otherwise) that Duesberg’s ostracization was due to his dissent, not his unprofessional methods.

No matter the cause of Deusberg’s past ostracization, his work on aneuploidy has regained the attention of the scientific community (see 7 January 2005, Science). To me this indicates the professionalism of the scientific community, as well as its willingness to accept ideas that are contrary to the consensus view. If aneuploidy is really the ultimate cause of cancer, for which we have no more than a slick line of reasoning to believe, researchers across the country will pore over their data for evidence. For, next to working for the public good, scientists desire recognition for their efforts. The promise of discovering the ultimate cause, and even perhaps the cure, of cancer will surely drive them forward (even if the resistance of the NIH is true, as Bethell claims).

Bethell writings indicate that he believes aneuploidy causes cancer because it makes sense to him. He then feels free to condemn the efforts and motivations of a generation of the world’s brightest researchers. However, he has no evidence to support his claim, and his line of reasoning, that aneuploidy is present in, and therefore causes, most cancers is fallacious. As Bethell himself points out in the reverse sense, we must be careful that “bystanders [don’t] become culprits.” Though Bethell may someday have proven to be correct, it would be by chance alone, not by current scientific evidence or even by good journalism.