Literature DB >> 25851566

SMT or TOFT? How the two main theories of carcinogenesis are made (artificially) incompatible.

Baptiste Bedessem1, Stéphanie Ruphy.   

Abstract

The building of a global model of carcinogenesis is one of modern biology's greatest challenges. The traditional somatic mutation theory (SMT) is now supplemented by a new approach, called the Tissue Organization Field Theory (TOFT). According to TOFT, the original source of cancer is loss of tissue organization rather than genetic mutations. In this paper, we study the argumentative strategy used by the advocates of TOFT to impose their view. In particular, we criticize their claim of incompatibility used to justify the necessity to definitively reject SMT. First, we note that since it is difficult to build a non-ambiguous experimental demonstration of the superiority of TOFT, its partisans add epistemological and metaphysical arguments to the debate. This argumentative strategy allows them to defend the necessity of a paradigm shift, with TOFT superseding SMT. To do so, they introduce a notion of incompatibility, which they actually use as the Kuhnian notion of incommensurability. To justify this so-called incompatibility between the two theories of cancer, they move the debate to a metaphysical ground by assimilating the controversy to a fundamental opposition between reductionism and organicism. We show here that this argumentative strategy is specious, because it does not demonstrate clearly that TOFT is an organicist theory. Since it shares with SMT its vocabulary, its ontology and its methodology, it appears that a claim of incompatibility based on this metaphysical plan is not fully justified in the present state of the debate. We conclude that it is more cogent to argue that the two theories are compatible, both biologically and metaphysically. We propose to consider that TOFT and SMT describe two distinct and compatible causal pathways to carcinogenesis. This view is coherent with the existence of integrative approaches, and suggests that they have a higher epistemic value than the two theories taken separately.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25851566     DOI: 10.1007/s10441-015-9252-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Biotheor        ISSN: 0001-5342            Impact factor:   1.774


  5 in total

1.  Process analysis of carcinogenesis: concept derivation of the tissue function "preservation of a homogeneous gene expression".

Authors:  Thomas Löser
Journal:  Theory Biosci       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 1.919

2.  An Emergence Framework of Carcinogenesis.

Authors:  Elizabeth A W Sigston; Bryan R G Williams
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 3.  Mutation or not, what directly establishes a neoplastic state, namely cellular immortality and autonomy, still remains unknown and should be prioritized in our research.

Authors:  Shengming Zhu; Jiangang Wang; Lucas Zellmer; Ningzhi Xu; Mei Liu; Yun Hu; Hong Ma; Fei Deng; Wenxiu Yang; Dezhong Joshua Liao
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 4.478

4.  Mutation Enrichment and Transcriptomic Activation Signatures of 419 Molecular Pathways in Cancer.

Authors:  Marianna A Zolotovskaia; Victor S Tkachev; Alexander P Seryakov; Denis V Kuzmin; Dmitry E Kamashev; Maxim I Sorokin; Sergey A Roumiantsev; Anton A Buzdin
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 6.639

5.  Over a century of cancer research: Inconvenient truths and promising leads.

Authors:  Carlos Sonnenschein; Ana M Soto
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 9.593

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.