Physicists have made great contributions to molecular biology, but this isn't one of those cases. This one is so wrong at so many levels it's hard to to justice to it. Much of it just misinterprets things we already know.
In the article it says:
Davies and Lineweaver claim that cancer is actually an organized and systematic response to some sort of stress or physical challenge. It might be triggered by a random accident, they say, but thereafter it more or less predictably unfolds.
There's nothing new here. Cancer is basically deregulated cellular replication and proliferation. These are core processes in multicellular organisms, so of course they unfold predictably. The trigger is often a mutation ("random accident") in a key regulatory gene.
The article says the new theory "challenges the orthodox view that cancer develops anew in each host". But we know that the mechanism of proliferation does not develop anew in each cancer; only the trigger is different in different cancers.
The physicists say “We envisage cancer as the execution of an ancient program pre-loaded into the genomes of all cells,” and that "it will express genes that are more deeply conserved among multicellular organisms, and so are in some sense more ancient."
Since cellular replication programs are deeply rooted and ancient because they are fundamental processes, this shouldn't be surprising.
"Sure enough, cancer reverts to an ancient form of metabolism called fermentation, which can supply energy with little need for oxygen, although it requires lots of sugar." Guess they are unaware that your muscle cells do they same when they are starved for oxygen! Anaerobic "fermentation" is a standard part of our metabolic system under certain conditions.
The guy wrote an article on his 'idea' back in 2011 in a newspaper:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/cancer-e... where he explicitly uses Haeckel as evidence for his theory: A century ago the German biologist Ernst Haekel pointed out that the stages of embryo development recapitulate the evolutionary history of the animal. Human embryos, for instance, develop, then lose, gills, webbed feet and rudimentary tails, reflecting their ancient aquatic life styles.
Of course this is total pseudoscience and I'm floored someone is receiving money for coming up with this. His descriptions of cancer (after two years of apparent study) simply do not make sense in any context.
Cancer's adaptation to anaerobic respiration has been know for a long time and isn't some magical 'atavism' or 'safe mode' but a necessity for a tumor.
I don't see you pointing out anything that is wrong?!
I also disagree that all that stuff should be obvious to everybody. Certainly wasnt to me, although it makes sense, which is why it's interesting. Rather than saying "hell, anybody can get cancer and we have no idea why" these guys seem to think about its role in evolution. They are thinking about it not as a random mutation but as an intentional genetic program which just makes much more sense.
Like in any criminal investigation, answering the cui bono question is imperative. I agree with the people in the paper actually: A deeper understanding is necessary. We dont know whether that will lead to a cure but as a software engineer its my experience that you can't fix a bug you don't understand. (And it amazes me so many of my fellow engineer try....)
I also disagree that all that stuff should be obvious to everybody.
It doesn't. But not everybody publishes something in journals. When you do, you have a responsibility to know your subject.
They are thinking about it not as a random mutation but as an intentional genetic program which just makes much more sense.
This actually makes little sense to me. The replication machinery and programming is deeply established, not a random mutation. The mutation is in the genes that regulate the system. The inappropriate execution of the replication is the key and that's well established to arise from mutational changes in regulatory elements.
In the article it says:
Davies and Lineweaver claim that cancer is actually an organized and systematic response to some sort of stress or physical challenge. It might be triggered by a random accident, they say, but thereafter it more or less predictably unfolds.
There's nothing new here. Cancer is basically deregulated cellular replication and proliferation. These are core processes in multicellular organisms, so of course they unfold predictably. The trigger is often a mutation ("random accident") in a key regulatory gene.
The article says the new theory "challenges the orthodox view that cancer develops anew in each host". But we know that the mechanism of proliferation does not develop anew in each cancer; only the trigger is different in different cancers.
The physicists say “We envisage cancer as the execution of an ancient program pre-loaded into the genomes of all cells,” and that "it will express genes that are more deeply conserved among multicellular organisms, and so are in some sense more ancient."
Since cellular replication programs are deeply rooted and ancient because they are fundamental processes, this shouldn't be surprising.
"Sure enough, cancer reverts to an ancient form of metabolism called fermentation, which can supply energy with little need for oxygen, although it requires lots of sugar." Guess they are unaware that your muscle cells do they same when they are starved for oxygen! Anaerobic "fermentation" is a standard part of our metabolic system under certain conditions.
This goes on and on...