Current wisdom on the role of genes in malignancy may not explain some features of cancer, but stepping back to look at the bigger picture inside cells reveals a view that just might
By Peter Duesberg
When I first began to study cancer as a young postdoctoral fellow in the early 1960s, it looked to leading scientists as though viruses could be the cause of most, if not all, malignancies. That idea was based on the discovery of several tumor- and leukemia-producing viruses that could infect a host cell and insert their own genetic material into its genome, sparking a cancerous transformation and proliferation of the cell. I was optimistic and naive enough to hope that if researchers could understand the exact molecular mechanisms by which such viruses caused cancer, we could develop vaccines to eliminate one of humanity’s most dreaded diseases.
My own contribution to that pursuit came in 1970, when my colleagues, Michael Lai and Peter Vogt, and I managed to isolate a specific gene, src, which was suspected to be the tumor-initiating culprit in avian Rous sarcoma virus. Within a few years, more creative scientific minds than mine had followed this lead to a realization that a closely related gene was already present in the normal DNA of animals, including humans. And a new cancer model was born: it proposed that some triggering event, such as a mutation in a human cell’s own version of src, could ignite tumorigenic powers like those possessed by its viral counterpart. The cancer-promoting potential of such a time bomb buried in our personal genomes earned it the title of “proto-oncogene.” Once the mutation occurred, it would become a full-fledged oncogene. [Continued]
Of course no mainstream publication by Peter can escape the requisite disclaimer, so that even this Scientific American article is compelled to contain the following box:
Editor's Note: The author, Peter Duesberg, a pioneering virologist, may be well known to readers for his assertion that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. The biomedical community has roundly rebutted that claim many times. Duesberg’s ideas about chromosomal abnormality as a root cause for cancer, in contrast, are controversial but are being actively investigated by mainstream science. We have therefore asked Duesberg to explain that work here. This article is in no sense an endorsement by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN of his AIDS theories.
Yet even here, the editors might have more accurately written "rejected" for "rebutted", particularly given their perspicacity in publishing his cancer thinking, which for more than a decade was ridiculed by mainstream cancer researchers as vehemently as his despised "AIDS theories".
And in-so-far as we have been presented with this unexpected Friday the 13th treat, maybe we can also wonder "out loud" (so to speak) whether the NIH might now actually fund one of Prof. Duesberg's numerous, rejected-out-of-hand grant applications to test the aneuploidy (chromosomal chaos) theory (in the classic, ie, pre-biotechnology cum bio-media unholy union, sense) of cancer's genetic roots.
[Here is an editorial from the issue that relates to much of the above as well as Prof. Strohman's comment. And here is as serious a refutation of any claims that Prof. Duesberg has been "rebutted" in the scientific literature as is possible, since it enables any who can read the material to make a completely independent determination as to the substance behind Duesberg's claim that the scientific literature itself disproves each and every aspect and prediction of the virus-AIDS hypothesis.]
A few people have noticed that at the end of the Sci Am article, the following appears, and have asked if I would make the reference available. Con gusto.
MORE TO EXPLORE
Debate Surges over the Origins of Genomic Defects in Cancer. Jean Marx in Science, Vol. 297, pages 544–546; July 26, 2002.
The Sigmoidal Curve of Cancer. Roberto P. Stock and Harvey Bialy in Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 21, pages 13–14; January 2003.
The Chromosomal Basis of Cancer. Peter Duesberg et al. in Cellular Oncology, Vol. 27, Nos. 5–6, pages 293–318; 2005.
Posted by: Harvey Bialy | April 13, 2007 at 09:14 PM
I would like to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate my long time friend and colleague, Peter Duesberg, on this quite remarkable 'breakthrough' into completely mainstream recognition.
I would also like to point out that even the "Disclaimer" is to his credit. In much the same way as with the Rene Magritte painting that declares itself not to be a pipe, one cannot help but be caught on the horns of several logical and semantic dilemmas when encountering it.
The one that first comes to mind as particularly relevant to Peter and AIDS is that it does seem impossible that a man who might just be correct concerning something as complicated as the genetic basis of malignancy could be so totally wrong about something as straightforward as whether HIV kills T-cells.
Posted by: Richard Strohman | April 15, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Ni Hao!
Dear St. Peter. Do you think that God in Her infinite wisdom let Darwinian evolution create a mechanism whereby a random (minimum aneuploidy) +/-1 chromosome (independent of which one of the set) missegregation cannot occur in a daughter cell -- even though the daughter cell could survive the gene expression pattern alteration, evolve even into cancer?
If not, we are in deep doo-doo for treating and eradicating cancer. All is stochastic and treatment palliative for those who suffer the random error.
No wonder people fear what you say. It may require one to think in mind boggling multi-variate terms beyond current mental capabilities about the definition and evolution of the multi-variate dynamic called “life” in chemical terms.
When moronic single reductionist variable thinking concerning virus=cancer fizzled, moronic single variable cause and effect, virus=AIDS was invented.
What will single variable one gene=one life process, one mutation in gene=one disease aficionados invent when that fizzles?
MOTYR
Posted by: Mouth of the Yellow River | April 29, 2007 at 01:14 AM
I would greatly appreciate any article, symposia, panel discussions, references, where a direct discussion of both major models of carcinogenesis to metastases and prognoses/treatment data are presented jointly by their main proponents, in the last two years, Dr. Weinberg and Dr. Duesberg. Thank you.
Posted by: PETER MORA | June 25, 2008 at 09:50 AM
Peter Mora,
Likely, no such symposia exists. The gene mutation theorists have the upper hand in funding and support, and, therefore, don't talk to the aneuploidy theorists.
This article in Sci Am in 2003 by Wayt Gibbs gives a good assessment of the competing theories.
Gibbs spoke at Duesberg's aneuploidy conference in January of 2008, but I don't know if the discussion and papers presented at the meeting has been published yet.
Posted by: Dr. Frank | June 30, 2008 at 07:09 PM