Search Here

A Stony Brook University-led research recently published in the scientific journal Nature argued that cancer was not just a case of bad luck due to some random DNA mutations.

The newly-published study refuted a bold claim by a group of researchers from John Hopkins University that the root cause of life-threatening diseases especially cancer is essentially the work of nature.

According to The Scientist, the John Hopkins-based research explained their theoretical perspective on cancer in a report that was published in the Science journal earlier this year. The core of their argument all boiled down to DNA mutation as a result of the number of times the cell divides. Armed with statistical findings, their study showed that environment and genetics only account for about a third of all cancers. In other words, it's mostly due to the luck factors.

The controversial "bad luck or random mutation theory of cancer" did not sit well with the rest of the scientific community.

As experts from Stony Brook University counter-argued, 70% to 90% of most cancers are significantly attributed to extrinsic factors such as environment and lifestyle. Intrinsic factors, on the other hand, only account for about 10% to 30% of risks associated with getting cancer as reported by Market Watch.

Employing a variety of analytic methods in their study, the researchers strongly refuted the "bad luck theory".

"Many scientists argued against the 'bad luck' or 'random mutation' theory of cancer but provided no alternative analysis to quantify the contribution of external risk factors. Our paper provides an alternative analysis by applying four distinct analytic approaches," remarked the lead proponent of the research Song Wu as quoted saying by Science Alert.

The seemingly contrasting views on the causes of cancer can be broadly summarized into two polarizing arguments from the opposing benches in the scientific community. On one hand, there is the idea that humans are masters of their own fate which enables humanity to find cures for diseases. The other perspective contains a rather skeptical notion about life and the inability of humanity to avert the mandates of nature.

Whatever you believe or not, the choice is yours.