OK, lets get this out of the way

There's been a post circulating around on FaceBook, entitled "Scientists Cure Cancer, but No One Takes Notice". To be honest - it's unproven science at best, a load of rubbish at worst. Here's why:

1. The author of the article doesn't know what he/she is writing about, and scientific terms are thrown around in a nonsensical manner. For example, mitochondria are NOT cells - they are cell organelles (little organs in the cell). Sure, there is a theory that a million gazillion years ago when we all lived in a soup that they were infective bacteria, but that's a separate story. A more significant error is the fact that glycolysis does NOT produce lactic acid - it is an essential cellullar process that provides pyruvate, the substrate used for the cell to generate energy. Shut off glycolysis, and you kill ALL cells, period. Lactic acid is produced via a different mechanism (more on this later).

2. The original research paper proper (from the website) dates back to 2007, and is more a hypothesis than anything. What the original researchers are suggesting is this: cancer cells grow at very high rate, and and hence have high energy needs. Most of this energy has to be produced via anaerobic respiration (probably due to ineffective angiogenesis), hence producing lactic acid in the process. To maintain the high energy requirements, the rate of pyruvate production has to increase (so glycolysis needs to occur at a faster rate).

The researchers propose to use DCA to suppress glycolysis, thereby cutting down the rate of anaerobic respiration. This essentially cuts off the energy supply to the cancer cells and kills them. The theory is that other cells are not AS affected because they are much more energy efficient (aerobic respiration) than cancer cells, and thus do not require high rates of glycolysis.

Sounds like a good theory, and explains why cells such as lung cells are not damaged in early experiments. However, there are other cells that are pretty energy demanding - such as neurons - which may explain why DCAs side effects include neurotoxicity. Also, the researchers also seem to be proponents of the Warburg hypothesis - that lactic acid is the cause of cancer - an idea that has fallen out of favor due to genetic discoveries.

3. Some good results are seen in vitro, but the real test of a drug is in vivo. DCA has so far gone through Phase 1 and 2 testing - which means that it seems to be relatively safe, and that there seems to be the possibility of benefit from the drug. However, there are no Phase 3 study results available (which is where we get REAL information on whether the drug actually has a benefit, and how great a benefit/harm).

IE: The science behind this hypothesis ranges from reasonable to rubbish, and DCA as yet is unproven in cancer treatment and actually has significant known side effects. I wouldn't be asking any doctor to prescribe this for me, anytime soon.

Review: 13 Things That Don't Make Sense

Brooks writes about 13 "anomalies" in the scientific world that refuse to fit into our nicely formulating theorems and paradigms. His writings can be largely grouped into two subsets - physics and biology (with chemistry interspersed along the way). For the former, he looks at issues such as dark matter and evidence of changes in universal constants (Eg: the speed of light). For the latter, he explores matters such as the placebo effect and the quest for a working definition of "life".

As I read this book, I couldn't help but have a stirring within me - a love for science in it purest, curious form, and an amazement at the marvels and curiousity of the creation. You see, One of my favourite books of all time is a guide to science by Isaac Asimov; Asimov's explanation of the world of physics left me in awe - I fondly remember discussions I had with friends on how relativity, amongst other things, had so many strange and marvellous implications for our understanding of the world. I remember spending nights in high school trying to wrap my head around quantum theories (who can forget Shroedinger's cat).

Why mention all this? I feel that this book embodies that philosophy in its approach to science - an inquisitive nature that revels in the challenge of discovering why the world works the way it does. Brooks at more than one point evokes Kuhn and his discussion of crisis leading to the (now cliched) paradigm shift, and he does it with good reason - Brooks is arguing at many of these anomalies in science just don't fit with our current paradigms, and could potentially force a complete rethink of our current systems. In short, look at the world around you, and don't be afraid to ask questions if things don't make sense - not with a fear that everything will collapse if you do, but with a confidence that somehow, someway, we'll come up with an even better way of explaining the world around us.

I don't know about you, but I find the thought of doing that strangely exciting.