DNA Is Not Destiny? Well, Duh
David L. Katz, MD, MPH
CMO, Tangelo. Founder: Diet ID; True Health Initiative. Founding Director, Yale-Griffin PRC (1998-2019). Health Journalist. COVID Curmudgeon
A high profile paper just published in the highly prestigious journal, Nature, suggests that overwhelmingly, cancer results from “extrinsic factors,” namely behaviors and exposures, rather than the “intrinsic” transgressions of our chromosomes. The media response is a proclamation that no, cancer is not just about “bad luck.” So august a platform for so salient a proposition seems to demand a highly erudite response, and I’ve got just the one: duh.
Didn’t we know this already?
Yes, it’s true, that almost exactly a year ago, a paper was published in the only journal that competes with Nature for prestige, Science, attributing cancer risk to the frequency of stem cell divisions – and propagating a spate of media coverage about the randomness of cancer. But the fallacy in that reporting is a long-established fact of epidemiology: cancer rates vary substantially with lifestyle and environments. While variation in stem cell divisions might say something about the aggregation of mutations in any given tissue, we have long had cause to know it does not meaningfully account for differential cancer risk among people, or populations.
The novelty of the new paper is not the emphasis on environmental and behavioral explanations for many cases of cancer. One might call that yesterday’s news, but in reality, it was yesterday’s news long before yesterday; it was yesterday’s news in 1982. Sir Richard Doll and Richard Peto published a famous paper in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 1981, characterizing the substantial preventability of cancer. A recent reassessment of their estimates concluded they appear to be valid after 35 years of scrutiny. And, of course, when McGinnis and Foege told us in 1993 that premature deaths in the United States were overwhelmingly preventable, again by modifying behaviors and exposures, cancer deaths were certainly in that mix.
The novelty in the new paper in Nature was to apply what we have long known about the salience of “extrinsic” causes of cancer directly to the proposition about “intrinsic” causes in the prior Science paper. What the current group concluded is that more frequent stem cell division does, indeed, create more opportunity for carcinogenic mutations- but that external factors provoke those mutations. Nature, in other words, has come down on the side of nurture.
In this epigenetic age, there is an expression that captures this interplay: genes load the gun, but lifestyle pulls the trigger.
Even more bluntly: DNA is not destiny. There are exceptions, of course. If you are dealt two copies of the sickle cell anemia gene, you develop sickle cell anemia inevitably. The same is true with just one copy of the gene for Huntington’s Disease. Such exceptions are rare enough, however, to reaffirm rather than refute the basic proposition: generally, DNA is not destiny.
To a large, and largely neglected degree- dinner is. Or could be.
Of course, the alliteration is nice- but it’s not really just “dinner.” It’s breakfast, too. It's our overall dietary pattern. And it’s not just diet either. It’s our lifestyle.
Lifestyle, in turn, is accountable to and dependent on social and environmental factors. Even causes have causes. The choices we make are ultimately subordinate to the choices we have. Some whole cultures serve up choices that foster health. Some do rather the contrary.
Still, we might constructively collate these insights. Whether by virtue of behaviors chosen and practiced by individual bodies, or by exposures, environments, and policies referable to the body politic- the underlying causes of cancer, as for other major chronic diseases, are overwhelmingly preventable. The new paper posits the arrestingly high figure of up to 90% so. Whether it is that, or the more modest 60% that has long been touted by those in the know- it is a luminous and tantalizing proposition just the same.
Even as we concede that the daily choices we make as individuals are to varying degrees subordinate to the choices we have by virtue of our culture, we might acknowledge one choice we could make any time. We could choose to stop rediscovering what we already know.
We have long known that lifestyle practices- whether born of personal choice, or public action- could eliminate the majority of cancers, and an even higher majority of other chronic diseases. We have long known how to prevent some 80% of premature deaths.
But as long as we remain interested in rediscovering what we know rather than putting it to good use, knowledge isn’t power. And while DNA isn’t destiny, at present, neither is dinner- at least not the favorable destiny it might be. Rather, our destiny seems much consigned to our collective, cultural dysfunction.
We are ill served by headlines that made cancer random a year ago, and overwhelmingly preventable this year. Both studies in both prestigious journals contributed something to our basic understanding, but neither changed our options or the prevailing view from altitude. We don’t know how to prevent every case of cancer, certainly, but cancer- along with every other major chronic disease- occurs far less often in populations that eat well, don’t smoke, and stay active. The numerous centenarians in the Blue Zones are obviously not just not dying of heart attacks at age 70 or 80. Living to 100 means they are also not dying of anything else then either, cancer included.
A New Year dawns, and with it, the alluring promise of new knowledge. We may hope that some of that knowledge will pertain to advances in the prevention and effective treatment of cancers, particularly those that defy our best efforts, and those that do seem truly random. But perhaps one of its greatest prospects for us all resides with the opportunity to renounce the need to rediscover next year what we knew and failed to apply last.
May this, then, be the year the wishful proposition about knowledge and power comes true. May it be the year we come together to lay hold of the master levers of medical destiny that have long been in our hands, and heave together. May this be the year we stop rediscovering what we already know, and actually, finally - do something with it.
-fin
David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP, FACLM
Director, Yale University Prevention Research Center; Griffin Hospital
President, American College of Lifestyle Medicine
Founder, The True Health Initiative
Follow at: LinkedIN; Twitter; Facebook
Read at: INfluencer Blog; Huffington Post; US News & World Report; About.com
Independent Cosmetics Professional
7 年David check out Keith Block in illinois he is head of oncology was my Dr years ago I am very impressed by his 80 percent recovery rate.
Branch Outreach and Programming Specialist at Kent District Library
8 年I just hope people don't hear this as a great chance to blame the victim. As one of the few people in my family with the BRCA1 mutation who doesn't have cancer, I'd hate to see all of my family members blamed for their cancer.
Nutrition for Mental and Brain Health. Correct biochemistry of your body and you'll see a miracle. Non pharmacological interventions for mental health.
8 年Prof Guy Van Elsacker DrSc - Biomed Expert What do you think?
Certified Holistic Health Coach at Cyriously Fit
8 年Dr. Katz. I wouldn't be so hard on the Nature article. Regurgitated material seems to continually fall on deaf ears. Bringing out the truth here and again no matter how it's said is good. The reality is that the majority of the folks have become living Zombies and oblivious to the leaders words in the healthcare today . I would agree that DNA is not our destiny but our inherited traits that have been mutated over the years by abuse from generations of poor lifestyle choices,environmental pollutions, poor food, and complacency. Things won't change until folks understand and take personal responsibility to understanding the truth. Our society can't hear enough that "You are, what you are, because of what, where, and how you feed your mind, body, and soul". Like in your book Disease Proof, My new book "Zombie Truckers" is written in layman's terms for the great folks that move America daily. We owe great gratitude for these people as they make great sacrifices to their health and wellbeing to deliver just about everything we consume as a society. Hear the truth from a living testimonial in "Zombie Truckers", www.pagepublishing.com/zombie-truckers
Resident Physician at LLU Health Education Consortium
8 年Thank you Dr. Katz for a bold perspective on the scholarly article in Nature. I would not necessarily call it, "rediscovering knowledge." Rather, I would call it reinforcining knowledge. Determining when to accept that there is enough data to establish a premise is a challenge. Indeed, there are unanswered questions that should be assessed through research, but that should not draw our criticism on this article. It's our responsibility to promote research in our respective disciplines. I hope to research solutions that accomplish better outcomes for underserved patient populations. It's a part of the answer to a big question of what we can do to improve health outcomes on average in the US population, both the question and the answer being ideas that should be acknowledged in society. The scholarly article tries to do the same; cancer prevention and reduced frequency of stem cell stimulation as an end result of possibly practicing preventive medicine may not be a widely acknowledged fact by people outside the realm of public health. We all should bring attention to what we research to add to our awareness and our reinforcement of knowledge.