ArticleDisruptive science and technology2013
Paradoxes in Carcinogenesis: There Is Light at the End of That Tunnel!
Article in Disruptive science and technology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Multiscale Wisdom of the Body: Collective Intelligence as a Tractable Interface for Next-Generation Biomedicine.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Mutation or not, what directly establishes a neoplastic state, namely cellular immortality and autonomy, still remains unknown and should be prioritized in our research.Journal of Cancer · 2022Review
- Review
- The Computational Boundary of a "Self": Developmental Bioelectricity Drives Multicellularity and Scale-Free Cognition.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
- Competing views on cancer.Journal of biosciences · 2014Article
- Just like the rest of evolution in Mother Nature, the evolution of cancers may be driven by natural selection, and not by haphazard mutations.Oncoscience · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The exchange of opinions motivated by Dr. Baker's article "Paradoxes in carcinogenesis should spur new avenues of research: An historical perspective" illustrates the reasons why the field of cancer research is stuck in a dead end. This paralysis presents a rich opportunity for philosophers, historians and sociologists of science to decipher the whys of this impasse. On the strictly biological front, we suggest to reinstate in cancer research the time proven practice so productive in the physical sciences of discarding wrong hypotheses and theories. We share the suggestion by Dr. Baker to stop trying to unify the two main theories of carcinogenesis, i.e., the Somatic Mutation Theory (SMT) and the Tissue Organization Field Theory (TOFT) because they are incompatible. Dr. Baker suggests breaching the impasse by investing in paradox-driven research. We discuss the barriers to the implementation of this novel strategy, and the significant impact that this strategy will have on knowledge at large and its application for the prevention and cure of cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.