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.

Book review: Unscientific America by Mooney and Kirshenbaum

In this book, Mooney and Kirshenbaum (I'll just refer to Mooney from now on) address the key issue of scientific illiteracy - the decline of scientific awareness and engagement with the public, and the dangerous implications it has for the future. He splits his chapters up into key topics - describing the current situation, how we got here, the issues behind the decline in various disciplines (eg: science in culture, science in movies, science in schools), hot topic issues such as the new atheism, and what can be done about it all.

I really want to like much more than I did, for good reason - it's centred on an issue that I'm (somewhat) interested in: scientific illiteracy. Mooney shares the same desire as I do - that people become more aware of the wonderful progress being made in scientific fields, that science conciously becomes a integral part of society, and that more people take consider pursuing science as a career path for the sheer love of it. In my case, my career direction (As a doctor) was most impacted when I was barely 10, by a "Book of Science" (that I still have) which contained some of the most marvellous pictures of the human body (dissected down to the level of vessels). I think my parents must have thought I was crazy to have placed "B.Science/Arts (combined)" right after "MBBS" on my university course preference list (I do have a crazier medical colleague who put B.Education as his second choice). So for sharing this passion, and communicating it in a easy and readable manner, Mooney scores some points.

But why doesn't this book score higher? Well, Mooney loves the scientific process no doubt, but underlying his entire book is a very questionable stance on what "science" is, and it's relation to the rest of society. Take for example, Mooney's discussion on the nature of science - which he describes as the description of an objective reality, compared to the humanities, which make a fool of reality. (He tries to be fair to the humanities, but he still comes across as poo-pooing them. Eg: His chapter on science and entertainment starts with a mockery of the idea that movies don't need to follow the natural order) He more or less completely dismisses post-modern philosophy in a few sentences, without showing evidence of engagement with some of the serious epistemology challenges it throws to scientific research. Even Stephen Hawking, in his new book The Grand Design, makes an admission that traditional "realism" is no longer a tenable position, not in light of post-modern philosphy, but in the context of new knowledge of the quantum world.

In addition, he repeated uses the word "science", like it were some holy grail - he says "we must fund science/protect science/encourage science", but never really deals the whole question of "what is science" - is it a concept, a philosphy, a defineable entity? He writes in such a way that one could be mistaken for thinking that science is a god to be worshipped, and that anyone who doesn't recognise that is a moron.

It is this "holier -than-thou" attitude, masked by what seems like a false sense of humility (he repeatedly says "Scientists are somewhat at fault to, for not doing enough to make sure things are done the proper way"), that marrs the entire book. For example, he complains that in politics, decisions are made not on careful analysis, but rather on ideology and political belief (well, surprise surprise, but ideology and political belief does form the entire framework on how we perform our analysis).

There is ultimately no clear outline on what exactly accounts for "Scientific literacy" is, and what differentiates it from scientific illiteracy. For example, he mocks things such as the Reagan "star wars" project as examples of stupidity, but then heaps praise upon projects that were once "Dreams" but have become reality (eg: space flight).

Scientific America is a book that for all intents and purposes addresses a key issue, not just in America but all over the world, even in Singapore (despite our world record science and math scores, how many of our students can actually apply critical scientific thinking to problems?). But ultimately, it comes across as too much of a kopitiam whinge, than a well thoughtout engagement with the key issues at hand (although there some points that shine through).

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.