Reuniting philosophy and science to advance cancer research.

Cancers rely on multiple, heterogeneous processes at different scales, pertaining to many biomedical fields. Therefore, understanding cancer is necessarily an interdisciplinary task that requires placing specialised experimental and clinical research into a broader conceptual, theoretical, and methodological framework. Without such a framework, oncology will collect piecemeal results, with scant dialogue between the different scientific communities studying cancer. We argue that one important way forward in service of a more successful dialogue is through greater integration of applied sciences (experimental and clinical) with conceptual and theoretical approaches, informed by philosophical methods. By way of illustration, we explore six central themes: (i) the role of mutations in cancer; (ii) the clonal evolution of cancer cells; (iii) the relationship between cancer and multicellularity; (iv) the tumour microenvironment; (v) the immune system; and (vi) stem cells. In each case, we examine open questions in the scientific literature through a philosophical methodology and show the benefit of such a synergy for the scientific and medical understanding of cancer.

Going big by going small: Trade-offs in microbiome explanations of cancer.

Microbial factors have been implicated in cancer risk, disease progression, treatment and prevention. The key word, however, is "implicated." Our aim in this paper is to map out some of the tensions between competing methods, goals, and standards of evidence in cancer research with respect to the causal role of microbial factors. We discuss an array of pragmatic and epistemic trade-offs in this research area: prioritizing coarse-grained versus fine-grained explanations of the roles of microbiota in cancer; explaining general versus specific cancer targets; studying model organisms versus human patients; and understanding and explaining cancer versus developing diagnostic tools and treatments. In light of these trade-offs and the distinctive complexity and heterogeneity on both sides of the microbiome-cancer relationship, we suggest that it would be more productive and intellectually honest to frame much of this work, at least currently, in terms of generating causal hypotheses to investigate further. Claims of established causal connections between the microbiome and cancer are in many cases overstated. We also discuss the value of "black boxing" microbial causal variables in this research context and draw some general cautionary lessons for ongoing discussions of microbiomes and cancer.

Speciation Post Synthesis: 1960-2000.

Speciation-the origin of new species-has been one of the most active areas of research in evolutionary biology, both during, and since the Modern Synthesis. While the Modern Synthesis certainly shaped research on speciation in significant ways, providing a core framework, and set of categories and methods to work with, the history of work on speciation since the mid-twentieth century is a history of divergence and diversification. This piece traces this divergence, through both theoretical advances, and empirical insights into how different lineages, with different genetics and ecological conditions, are shaped by very different modes of diversification.

An integrative view on sex differences in brain tumors.

Sex differences in human health and disease can range from undetectable to profound. Differences in brain tumor rates and outcome are evident in males and females throughout the world and regardless of age. These observations indicate that fundamental aspects of sex determination can impact the biology of brain tumors. It is likely that optimal personalized approaches to the treatment of male and female brain tumor patients will require recognizing and understanding the ways in which the biology of their tumors can differ. It is our view that sex-specific approaches to brain tumor screening and care will be enhanced by rigorously documenting differences in brain tumor rates and outcomes in males and females, and understanding the developmental and evolutionary origins of sex differences. Here we offer such an integrative perspective on brain tumors. It is our intent to encourage the consideration of sex differences in clinical and basic scientific investigations.

Cancer and the goals of integration.

Cancer is not one, but many diseases, and each is a product of a variety of causes acting (and interacting) at distinct temporal and spatial scales, or "levels" in the biological hierarchy. In part because of this diversity of cancer types and causes, there has been a diversity of models, hypotheses, and explanations of carcinogenesis. However, there is one model of carcinogenesis that seems to have survived the diversification of cancer types: the multi-stage model of carcinogenesis. This paper examines the history of the multistage theory, and uses the theory as a case study in the limits and goals of unification as a theoretical virtue, comparing and contrasting it with "integrative" research.

Ethical issues in cancer screening and prevention.

November 2009's announcement of the USPSTF's recommendations for screening for breast cancer raised a firestorm of objections. Chief among them were that the panel had insufficiently valued patients' lives or allowed cost considerations to influence recommendations. The publicity about the recommendations, however, often either simplified the actual content of the recommendations or bypassed significant methodological issues, which a philosophical examination of both the science behind screening recommendations and their import reveals. In this article, I discuss two of the leading ethical considerations at issue in screening recommendations: respect for patient autonomy and beneficence and then turn to the most significant methodological issues raised by cancer screening: the potential biases that may infect a trial of screening effectiveness, the problem of base rates in communicating risk, and the trade-offs involved in a judgment of screening effectiveness. These issues reach more broadly, into the use of "evidence-based" medicine generally, and have important implications for informed consent.

What was Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection and what was it for?

Fisher's 'fundamental theorem of natural selection' is notoriously abstract, and, no less notoriously, many take it to be false. In this paper, I explicate the theorem, examine the role that it played in Fisher's general project for biology, and analyze why it was so very fundamental for Fisher. I defend and Lessard (1997) in the view that the theorem is in fact a true theorem if, as Fisher claimed, 'the terms employed' are 'used strictly as defined' (1930, p. 38). Finally, I explain the role that projects such as Fisher's play in the progress of scientific inquiry.