Debating The Genome Cancer Atlas

In “This is No Way to Cure Cancer,” by Sharon Begley in the March 26, 2007 edition of Newsweek, Begley supports the argument that a $1.5 million fund for cancer research on tumors is a bad thing because the research is based on the mutations of genomes in a tumor. Begley argues that tumors are not really the problem. Instead, she labels the real problem as metastases or “malignant cells that spread to a vital organ like the brain.”

What I find to be problematic about this idea stems from the fact that metastases originates in the mutations of tumor cells. How is researching the mutation of a tumor then not beneficial? Begley states, “Identifying all the mutations in a tumor is overkill,” but then goes on to say that the Cancer Genome Atlas is flawed because it might not be comprehensive enough. She goes on to say the following:
"It gets worse. Different parts of a tumor can have completely different mutations…Even if the research does lead to new drug cocktails, a doctor will logically choose drugs that target mutations he or she knows are there— that is, in the biopsied part of the tumor—leaving the very different mutations in nonsampled areas free to proliferate."

First Begley says that the research is far too detailed to be beneficial, and then she states that it is far too much of an overview to be beneficial. It seems that Begley poked a hole in her own argument by arguing two points.

Furthermore, how could Begley write that a tumor is “relatively unimportant?” If tumors were unimportant, doctors would not take biopsies or diagnose cancer—yes, malignant cells are the biggest problem, but these malignant cells find their homes in tumors. In fact, malignant cells mutate to be so from within the tumor.

If, as Begley puts it, “Scientists hope they can separate cancer-causing mutations from innocuous ones,” how are they not making strides in the science of mutation identification? By studying the mutations of a tumor, it seems that scientists could catch the signs of malignant mutation so as to make cancerous recognition quicker. If some sort of drug could be developed to prevent this mutation from occurring, perhaps cancer research would be bettered.

Understandably, the issues of funding are relevant to all science. Even Latour addresses the issue in Chapter 4 of Science in Action. Of course, Latour sounds quite enthusiastic about funding outside of the military-industrial complex because it is much more rare and needed. This makes sense insofar as this type of support is rare. Using Latour's graph of "U.S. Federal obligations for research and development in constant 1972 dollars," he answers the question, "What sort of topics drain so much taxpayer's money into industry and the universities?" (171). National Defense held $8 billion to its name, while General Science had under $2 billion, and Health held just about $2 billion. Latour would be grateful for the Genome Atlas research in that it is a part of General Science and Health research. That is not to say that researchers should be grateful for any research done, but that the fact it is being done is a good thing.

This argument follows that if scientists have a better way of isolating the problems of cancer, then they should propose a research project and attempt to take funding away from the Cancer Genome Atlas. In the meantime, be happy that $1.5 million is available to people at all.



WRITTEN IN REFERENCE TO:
“This is No Way to Cure Cancer”
Sharon Begley
Newsweek
March 26, 2007

"Science in Action"
Bruno Latour
Harvard University Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts
1987