In the Galapagos
She loved water. Not me. No, wait - that didn't come out right.
The NY Times provides a summary of a recent paper that
treats of what you might be tempted to call the “philosophy of cancer”, by
which I mean the nature of such aberrations as viewed in light of
evolution. All that sounds thick and
stifling, but that would be an unfair assessment of this short article. You should read it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/science/cellular-cheaters-give-rise-to-cancer.html?ref=health
The gist, honestly (but perhaps erroneously, in part)
summarized
Multicellularity (as in us, fruit flies and grapefruit) has
evolved from single-cellularity at least seven times – mostly in braches of
life I have never heard of before. It
evolves because it offers certain survival benefits. However, multicellularity require sacrifice –
cells must give up their absolute freedom to behave as they see fit, and
instead assume certain definite roles and functions.
What we call cancer is simply one way to describe the result when a cell
rebels against these restrictions and begins to do what IT wants to do, rather
than what the ORGANISM requires. The
organism has devised many ways to snuff out such a rebellious cell, but sometimes
they fail. And that’s about it.
I have pondered these concepts for, oh, easily 30 minutes,
and I am somewhat puzzled. Evolution is
largely based on natural selection: everything else equal, that unit prospers
that is most aptly suited to its environment.
The key is survival. The authors
of this article (web address given below) regard the success of a tumor as a
benefit to survival – of the tumor.
However, in the end the organism dies, and so does the tumor. Rotten kind of “success”, I would say.
Here is the original article. I am going to study it and see if deeper
understanding evolves. However, my
great grandkids are visting (with their mothers, of course), so I have better things
to do right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment