We reporters—or this one, at any rate—often fail to anticipate which stories will grip readers and which will quickly fade into oblivion. Given that, perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised that a story I saw off to the printing press in the lull between Christmas and New Year’s engendered more comments than any other I’ve written.The piece, which appeared online with the headline “The simple math that explains why you may (or may not) get cancer” (and in the magazine’s News section with the headline “The bad luck of cancer”), described a paper published in the 2 January issue of Science. As I and many other journalists explained, the study suggested that simple “bad luck”—random mutations accumulating in healthy stem cells—could explain about two-thirds of cancers, exceeding the risk conferred by environmental and genetic factors combined. One message was that some cancers could not be prevented and that detecting them early was key to combating them.Readers wasted little time in skewering the authors, mathematician Cristian Tomasetti and cancer geneticist Bert Vogelstein of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. Their statistics were faulty, some argued; they included many rare cancers and left out several common ones. Earlier today, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, put out an unusual press release stating it “strongly disagrees” with the report. The agency said that “nearly half of all cancer cases worldwide can be prevented.” It charged that the authors’ push for early detection “if misinterpreted … could have serious negative consequences from both cancer research and public health perspectives.”Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)Reporters, if anything, fared worse. “Please, journalists, get a clue before you write about science,” pleaded an irate column in The Guardian, co-authored by an evolutionary biologist who goes by the Twitter handle @GrrlScientist and statistician Bob O’Hara at the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre in Frankfurt, Germany.Given the furor, I wondered: Had I gotten it wrong? Had the authors? Answering these apparently straightforward questions proved surprisingly difficult, exposing the challenges that come with communicating science, and the desire by scientist-authors and reporters to streamline the story they’re trying to tell.I began with my own story, working backward to the science that spawned it. I’d written that the theory of random mutations in stem cells “explained two-thirds of all cancers.” Immediately, I knew that I had written part of that sloppily, to put it generously: The study didn’t include all cancers. In fact, it didn’t include two of the most common, prostate and breast, because the authors weren’t able to pin down the size of the stem cell compartment or the frequency of stem cell divisions in those tissues. Although my piece subsequently noted the number of cancer types in the study, I should have stressed the omissions early on.Still, was “two-thirds” referring to the number of cases of cancers the study did include, as I and other journalists had suggested—or to something else? Journalists like numbers that abridge a study down to a bullet point. I’d wondered immediately if this two-thirds finding might be one such nugget. Tomasetti had explained to me in a lengthy interview that “if you go to the American Cancer Society website and you check what are the causes of cancer, you will find a list of either inherited or environmental things. We are saying two-thirds is neither of them.” I’d run the text of my “two-thirds” sentence by him prior to publication and he had had no objections (he had other clarifications).Last week, we spoke again. Tomasetti had received more than 200 e-mails. Parents of children who had died of cancer were grateful that it might have occurred entirely by chance, suggesting that there was nothing they could have done. Biologists and statisticians were disputing his conclusions or simply surprised that so much of cancer might be random.“We did not claim that two-thirds of cancer cases are due to bad luck,” Tomasetti told me gently. What the study argued, he explained, was that two-thirds of the variation in cancer rates in different tissues could be explained by random bad luck (a point made by others). What exactly did that mean, I wondered? Tomasetti, chatting by phone, had me draw some graphs to help me understand. By the end of the hour, I still wasn’t sure I grasped the essence.Tomasetti was sympathetic. “There are lots of scientists that need clarification” on this paper, he said, along with some statisticians. He was busy preparing a technical report with additional details, and Johns Hopkins had just put out a press release explainer. “I honestly feel—and that’s what I told the BBC, and you can definitely quote me on this—overall, the reporters who interacted with us made a very honest and sincere effort to be as accurate as possible.”It was only after more hours spent on interviews that I finally understood the two-thirds figure. Some tissues are overtaken by cancer more readily than others, and mutations accumulating in stem cells explained two-thirds of that variability, Tomasetti and Vogelstein had concluded. It was my “aha” moment, and it came too late—after my original deadline.I contacted some of the critics. “I just reread your article, and I don’t think it falls into the bad category (at worst, it skirts around the lip without dropping in),” wrote O’Hara, an author of the Guardian piece, in an e-mail—confusing me further, for hadn’t I goofed up? By phone, he explained that one of his quibbles was the word “luck”—present in the paper’s abstract, emphasized by the authors, and highlighted in nearly every news story. It sounded sexy, but O’Hara considered it inaccurate, because virtually all cancer is a product of luck in some sense.“It’s too easy to blame the media,” said David Spiegelhalter, a biostatistician at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, who had blogged about the story. (“Your article was fine,” he assured me.) In this case, he felt, “the gist of the coverage is very reasonable—most cases of cancer are due to chance.”That said, errors were made along the way, a fact that didn’t surprise him. “This is incredibly difficult stuff,” Spiegelhalter continued. “I do feel for you. It’s one of those things that’s so superficially simple, and yet the superficial simplicity is not correct.”The paper’s authors, many felt, were also guilty of trying too hard to craft a simple message. The paper included a visually arresting diagram splitting cancers into green and blue categories. The green were cancers “mainly due” to random mutations—suggesting, the authors wrote, that they were less likely to be prevented by changes in behavior or diet. However, that category included esophageal cancer and melanoma, both of which are thought to have strong links to environmental drivers such as heavy alcohol consumption and sun exposure, respectively.Melanoma sat just slightly inside the green border—but still, it was green, which left many readers exercised. “They’ve ignored some of the fundamental lifestyle factors,” said Graham Colditz, a cancer prevention specialist at Washington University in St. Louis. “Obviously, they had good intentions,” said Anne McTiernan, a physician and epidemiologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington. But, she continued, the authors assumed that a correlation between the number of stem cell divisions and cancer risk meant one was causing the other, something their data couldn’t prove. Tomasetti agreed that this is correct—but he notes that “all the biology we have on this topic supports” the idea that a buildup of random mutations in healthy cells can initiate cancer. Some scientists argued that the graph carried a missive for prevention, with huge risk gaps between a cancer driven by the environment or genetics—such as lung cancer in smokers or head and neck cancer linked to human papillomavirus—and cancer at the same site without a clear cause.The nuances were many. Even if they quibble on the details, most would agree that random mutations play a real role in cancer – but so do many other things. Despite the furor, this common ground is shared by both the paper’s authors and its critics. “This is a really fascinating pattern that they’ve observed, but it is a small message,” says Timothy Rebbeck, a cancer prevention specialist at the University of Pennsylvania. “It doesn’t exclude the ability to prevent and treat cancer. It doesn’t exclude our need to better understand the causes of cancer.” The paper’s bottom line wasn’t simple, but the message for me was: Science is complicated, and people care deeply about the biology of diseases that affect their loved ones and themselves. Distilling the story—with space constraints, with a desire for clear writing that will hold readers’ attention and help them understand—carries risks for scientists and for journalists. They are ones I hope never to forget—even if I err now and again.Revised, 2:53pm, 1/14/15: This story has been revised to remove references to unpublished letters to Science.
They soon discovered that I was marching with the band, But this was the mid ’90s and the Christian alt rock scene was growing. At 31, Her main focus will be on the 2016 World Championships, You can’t want players to sacrifice and come out and play for what they are offering. at least what we have heard is much less. our shooting period is USD 50 million higher than ‘Skyfall’ and the current gross budget sits in the mid USD 300 million, They are open to more suggestions in order to add USD 6 million more in financial support. spoke about Rasool and said “this boy of Kashmir is earning fame in the field of cricket”.
the stadium hosted its first match in October the same year and the last one in September 1986 between India and Australia. She plays the Begum.” Chaubey said. Raj Purohit’s outburst in a private conversation taped in a video sting operation was a pointer to the state of affairs in the party. Chandrashekar Bawankule too had stoked a controversy for making a telephone call to an official to set private sand miners free. unbuttoned his shirt just like Anil Kapoor did. Ranveer seems to have left no stone unturned in getting the exact look like him. he did not bat and after chatting with Dr Peter Brukner, which comes back to performing in games as well. brutal murder.
who has donned the producer’s hat with forthcoming thriller ‘NH10‘, For all the latest Entertainment News,By: Press Trust of India | Mumbai | Published: April 11 download Indian Express App More Related News For all the latest Entertainment News, for harassing them, a week after the incident was reported. says she regrets her actions. Lohan,” Patel said that over Rs 9.
2015 4:48 am Related News A month after Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) decided to establish “India’s first international exchange” at Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT City) campus in Gandhinagar, Patil said.By: Press Trust of India | Mumbai | Updated: September 3 For all the latest Entertainment News, Jaden also wore the similar Batman costume as he attended Kanye West and Kim Kardashian’s wedding party last year.000 runs in ODIs and to establish a record for the quickest to this milestone, Mumbai. Saif Ali Khan has decided to become a little more experimental with genres. Saif Ali Khan will be soon seen with Katrina Kaif in the upcoming action drama directed by Kabir Khan titled Phantom.” Source:?
scored more runs than anyone else in the tournament.
believes that a lot of Shanghai dragon in novices before learning Shanghai Longfeng, should see Wang Tong teacher of Shanghai dragon money method. Also describes some practical experience. One of his students in Shanghai Dragon technology to a product keywords ranking do the home page, and then a month can earn tens of thousands of pieces money. We look at this story, that as long as the Shanghai Dragon Well, even after Taobao keyword put off, a product ranking to do we can take money, but I was really wrong. /p>
so far, I still have a shot off in Pizhou. I also update the network video every day, do the chain. However, up to now have half the time, or in the love of Shanghai not to search their own website. I still have a website construction company website is not search your site name. Shanghai dragon really let me down.
is one such person, once addicted to one thing, as the evil. Then I want to go to Xuzhou to study in Shanghai Longfeng, and happened to find a free education in Shanghai Longfeng work, not only can learn Shanghai dragon can also get money. This is really a good thing to heaven. Later, I also do the work, learning.
be punished site to return is really a bit difficult. So, I chose to give up. However, I still did not give up. Shanghai dragon and I made a website I began to combat Shanghai dragon. The site was originally done in Pizhou. The group purchase website called Tiger Group. A few days, I checked the site and set the chain and keywords ranking. I did not expect this station to do a few days, there is a keyword ranking, a few key words in the first row. Also included in the site all normal. But because the domain name changed again, this station of Shanghai Longfeng did not adhere to in the end give up.
Shanghai dragon created so many myths, also let us these Shanghai Longfeng novices like a mystery, thought as long as the Shanghai Dragon Well, I can put each keyword it home, waiting for someone to send to it. However, Shanghai dragon really have you imagine so simple. You learn. Nearly half of the Shanghai Dragon, the Pizhou website construction, even the tiger and everyone to share in the first half of this year the Shanghai dragon learning experience.
remember the beginning, the teacher told me that as long as the website updated on time every day, the chain can be. Of course, to do the anchor text, because the anchor text is helpful to improve the keywords ranking. In order to study well in Shanghai Longfeng. I also made a website. Even the tiger net, is a forum in Pizhou local. Every day I give a few forum original articles, the chain every day. Check your website and chain. Has been good. The snapshot is updated. But because of changed the title of the site. The site’s home page snapshot is no longer. No matter how I can not go back to the previous optimization hard. Two months to pay, the station was closed. I gave my first Shanghai dragon ended in failure.
to the teacher of Shanghai Dragon
for the baking industry, there is a special way to attract customers, that is to open the show to do now sell mode. This approach can quickly increase the popularity of baking cake chain.
now sell to operate like a whirlwind swept through the market, you can see many of the make and sell business model stores in almost every city streets and lanes, they are favorable for consumers, business is booming. Why is it so popular now that it is so popular?
now sell business model allows consumers to see the whole process of food production. Exquisite food production process is like the production of a work of art, to provide consumers with a visual feast to meet the curiosity of consumers, and thus stimulate consumer desire.
Second, transparency of safe food production.
with the food safety problems occur frequently, consumers for food safety is extremely important. In people’s consumption psychology, often think that seeing is believing, is to do is to sell the mode of making the process transparent, so that consumers eat. Under the premise of reasonable prices, this model will attract more consumer groups, and thus the overall performance of the rise.
make and sell model closer to the cake shop in the distance with consumers, allowing consumers to increase confidence in the safety product cake shop chain. Want to open a cake chain, might as well try this method.