SMT or TOFT? How the Two Main Theories of Carcinogenesis are Made Incompatible

Acta Biotheoretica 63 (3):257-267 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The building of a global model of carcinogenesis is one of modern biology’s greatest challenges. The traditional somatic mutation theory is now supplemented by a new approach, called the Tissue Organization Field Theory. 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

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,429

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Organicism and Reductionism in Cancer Research: Towards a Systemic Approach.Christophe Malaterre - 2007 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (1):57 – 73.
Cancer and the Goals of Integration.Anya Plutynski - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (4):466-476.
SMT Vs. TOFT.Don A. Gilbert - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (7):555-555.
The Terrestrial Craddle of Life.F. Albarède & J. Blichert-Toft - 2009 - In Maryvonne Gérin & Marie-Christine Maurel (eds.), Origins of Life: Self-Organization and/or Biological Evolution? Edp Sciences. pp. 1--12.
Metaphysical Presuppositions and Scientific Practices: Reductionism and Organicism in Cancer Research.James A. Marcum - 2005 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19 (1):31 – 45.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-08-16

Downloads
25 (#459,588)

6 months
1 (#416,470)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?