Biography Of Cancer Research Articles

‘The Emperor of All Maladies, the King of Terrors’: The Violent Somatechnics of Cancer

This article considers the current worldwide cancer epidemic as shaped through complex somatechnical intra-actions between the intimately fleshy suffering of individual bodies and structural violence exerted through carcinogenic necrotechnologies such as pesticides. Additionally, it unpacks the epistemologies of ignorance that characterise contemporary cancer imaginaries in the west by reflecting on how they operate through the widespread deployment of warfare metaphors; metaphors that, in the twenty-first century, have morphed into ‘war against cancer-as-terror(ist)’- images. United States oncologist Siddhartha Mukherjee’s bestselling book, The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer (2011) – also the winner of the Guardian’s non-fiction book award – figures as a nodal point for the ways in which mainstream western cancer narratives and biomedical models obscure the links between cancer and what anthropologist-chemist Anastasia Karakasidou calls chemical modernity; that is, the global spread of carcinogens as a consequence of the worldwide racial capitalist transformations of agriculture and production through chemicalisation. Investigating how epistemologies of ignorance work at the levels of cancer biology, cancer treatment, and environmental carcinogenesis, this article at the same time also demonstrates how the somatechnical lens makes it possible to analyse the intertwined operations of violence, power, technologies, and bodies at all of these levels. This analysis is then complemented by a contemplation of the conative vitality of bodily matter that ontologically accounts for the chiasmatic two-way process between techné and soma that is central to a somatechnical understanding of cancerous embodiment. This article also uses autobiographical material to reflect upon the ways in which epistemologies of ignorance and their matching stories of cancer as natural pathology/enemy/doppelgänger/terrorist are nourished at the individual level of experience of cancer patients and their companions and carers.

Why stories about illness matter

Plagues and contagious epidemics have long inspired writers, Sophocles, Boccaccio, Daniel Defoe, Mary Shelley, Albert Camus, and Orhan Pamuk among them. In the past decades, other diseases have found gifted chroniclers. Oncologist Siddhartha Mukherjee's bestselling The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer, for instance, won the Pulitzer Prize in 2011. Physicians and medical historians continue to add to the literature on diseases, ranging from anxiety to kidney failure to osteoporosis and more.

Linguocognitive Specifics of the Disease Myth

The article deals with the question of cancer myth representation in the popular science medical discourse. This study is carried out according to the linguocultural approach to the study of the cancer myth, which is based on the reconsideration of linguocultural phenomena. Myths about diseases are of linguistic and cultural significance and they are passed down from generation to generation. Those of phenomena that are incomprehensible and frightening are considered to cause additional associations. Cancer diseases refer to such linguocultural phenomena. Myths about diseases reflect the results of this or that form of reconsideration or experience of some phenomena by a particular linguocultural society. The work provides the definitions of the notions myth and disease. The methodology of the study is based on the research by foreign and Russian scientists in the field of study of the notions of myth and disease as semiotic systems. The popular science medical survey The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer by Siddhartha Mukherjee served as a research background. It analyses the way the disease myth actualizes in the popular science medical discourse. It shows a mythological plot (or mythological information) to get actualized in a particular situation by means of reference, and the way it contributes to the explication of a particular disease myth. Neither the subject of the message nor the plot of the myth is of importance for the reader, only the influence of the myth on the patients representations of disorder and his emotional state and on the society as a whole makes sense. The study helps conclude that mythological information representing the disease myth is nationally and socially marked, and is characterized by a particular conceptual presentation and is expressed by different linguistic means.

Consequences of the FDA Decision on Aducanumab for Patient Care and Research

The recent accelerated approval of Aducanumab has been the most mixed-consequence and historical decision that has taken place in the public health arena during my professional career. When I search for earlier comparisons of similar moment, the National Cancer Act of 1971 comes to mind, based upon what I have learned about it from Siddhartha Muckherjee’s “biography of cancer (1).” That, too, evidently involved passionate scientists with widely differing opinions, politics, and the loud voices of influential advocacy groups. There was a large outcry protesting the interference of politics and social concerns into the integrity of the scientific process. The approval of the National Cancer Act enabled many diverse efforts to treat a host of cancers, often treatments that would have been considered too high risk before the Act, resulting in some treatments that devastated patients, and some treatments and innovative approaches (e.g. combinations) that eventually worked.

Book Review: Siddhartha Mukherjee, The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

Book Review: Siddhartha Mukherjee, <i>The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer</i>

The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

A s both a medical student and a cancer patient, I found that the Pulitzer Prize–winning book The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer by Siddhartha Mukherjee, D.Phil., MD (Simon and Schuster, 2010), gave me at once a dose of knowledge and a salve for the soul. Early in the book, Dr. Mukherjee candidly writes that he started his biography of cancer as a way, ironically, to escape his “immersive”—read “drowning”—oncology fellowship. He fled into the annals of cancer-treatment research to make sense of the lethal complexity—scientific, emotional, and human—that he and his patients were experiencing. He addresses the questions anyone with cancer can bat away only for so long: What is cancer? Why me? Years later, the finished product, a magisterial work of enormous research and reflection on the nature of cancer, has won and deserved its shower of accolades.

It takes a village…

2These authors have much in common with the Task Force. They, like the TF: are concerned to quantify the aggregate benefit from the screening for some defined type(s) of population for which public policy is, or might be, in favour of the screening; think of this benefit for any such population in terms of the proportional reduction in mortality from the cancer; think that a measure of this reduction can be derived from the studies that have addressed the counterpart of this reduction in experimental cohorts; are not concerned to judge whether the diagnostic work-ups and treatments in a given trial, even dating from a half-century ago, have relevance to practices at present and beyond; do not view it relevant to take note of the protocols for and practices of the diagnostic work-ups and treatments in those studies; and finally, do not think it necessary to judge the validity of the trials used for quantification of the mortality reduction, even if major problems of validity in them are well known. In this aggregate of principles, the inattention to the well-known problems of validity in the trials is particularly surprising. Suffice it to note that while much emphasis is placed on the trials being randomized, even this feature of them has been prone to be invalid. Thus, S. Mukherjee, in his “biography of cancer”, 3 points out and explains how the HIP trial was “instantly a logistical nightmare” (p. 295); and how, in this trial, “The unscreened group had been mistakenly overloaded with patients with prior breast cancer” (p. 297; italics in the original). He also points out and explains how “The [Canadian National Breast Screening Study] faltered, …, by succumbing to the opposite sin: by selectively enriching the mammography group with high-risk women” (p. 299; italics in the original). On the other hand, Hanley et al. diverge, profoundly, from the Task Force in the way they think of, and derive, the results from the trials; and in this, these authors take major exception also to the culture that the TF in this respect shares with the trialists them

Lessons from Two Domestic Wars: Cancer and Poverty

Future OncologyVol. 9, No. 11 CommentaryLessons from two domestic wars: cancer and povertyJohn Power & Nathan LawrentschukJohn PowerUniversity of Melbourne, Faculty of Arts, School of Social & Political Sciences, Melbourne, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author & Nathan Lawrentschuk* Author for correspondenceUniversity of Melbourne & Ludwig Institute Cancer Research, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Melbourne, Australia. Search for more papers by this authorEmail the corresponding author at lawrentschuk@gmail.comPublished Online:24 Oct 2013https://doi.org/10.2217/fon.13.173AboutSectionsView ArticleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInReddit View articleKeywords: neoplasmoncologyphysicianpolitical scienceReferences1 Gillette ML. Launching the War on Poverty: An Oral History (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press, NY, USA (2010).Google Scholar2 Mukherjee S. The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer. Fourth Estate, London, UK (2011).Google Scholar3 Jemal A, Simard EP, Dorell C et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2009, featuring the burden and trends in human papillomavirus(HPV)-associated cancers and HPV vaccination coverage levels. J. Natl Cancer Inst.105(3),175–201 (2013).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 Stricker F. Why America Lost the War On Poverty–and How To Win It. University of North Carolina Press, NC, USA (2007).Google Scholar5 Simone B, Champ C, Rosenberg A et al. Selectively starving cancer cells through dietary manipulation: methods and clinical implications. Future Oncol.9(7),959–976 (2013).Link, CAS, Google Scholar6 Wadhwa R, Taketa T, Sudo K, Blum-Murphy M, Ajani JA. Ramucirumab: a novel antiangiogenic agent. Future Oncol.9(6),789–795 (2013).Link, CAS, Google Scholar7 Lindner U, Lawrentschuk N, Schatloff O, Trachtenberg J, Lindner A. Evolution from active surveillance to focal therapy in the management of prostate cancer. Future Oncol.7(6),775–787 (2011).Link, Google Scholar8 Nouspikel T. Genetic instability in human embryonic stem cells: prospects and caveats. Future Oncol.9(6),867–877 (2013).Link, CAS, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 9, No. 11 eToC Sign up Follow us on social media for the latest updates Metrics Downloaded 48 times History Published online 24 October 2013 Published in print November 2013 Information© Future Medicine LtdKeywordsneoplasmoncologyphysicianpolitical scienceFinancial & competing interests disclosureThe authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.PDF download

The Emperor of All Maladies

The Emperor of All Maladies

DNA Synthesis as a Therapeutic Target: The First 65 Years

This article was inspired by my reading of The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer, by Siddhartha Mukherjee, M.D. (1) and in particular, by reading two reviews of the book by scientists whom I admire (2, 3). These reviewers were transfixed, as was I, by accounts in the early chapters of Sidney Farber and his use of folic acid analogs, beginning in 1947, in the experimental treatment of acute lymphocytic leukemia in desperately ill children. However, both reviewers and I were struck by how little information was presented about mechanisms of action of the early antimetabolites, including the folate analogs used by Farber, and at how many of those early antimetabolites were mentioned only briefly, if at all. Gertrude Elion and George Hitchings at Burroughs-Wellcome rate a page for their synthesis of 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and other purine analogs, but Charles Heidelberger, who synthesized 5-fluorouracil (FU) and 5-fluorodeoxyuridine (FUdR), receives no mention at all.

The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

Book Review: The emperor of all maladies: a biography of cancer

Book Review: The emperor of all maladies: a biography of cancer

The Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

The Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

The whodunit of cancer

The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer. Siddhartha Mukherjee. Scribner; 2010. In this epic volume, Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee, a young medical oncologist with a strong academic pedigree at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, delivers what the title promises, a non-toxic and educational

The Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

22nd May 1948, Jimmy’s song is broadcasted on radio but it echoes in the hearts of millions. Jimmy becomes the mascot of cancer just as planned by Sidney Farber (The Doctor of the Dead). doi : 10.5214/ans.0972.7531.1118211

“Stand up to cancer” focuses on accelerating promising research

“Stand up to cancer” focuses on accelerating promising research

The emperor of all maladies

For A Biography of Cancer: An Evening with Siddharta Mukherjee, at the New York Academy of Sciences, April 14, 2011, see http://www.nyas.org/ events/Detail.aspx?cid=aac8a0aa698b-4dfe-864c-bb482fd2f510 Appreciation of the history of science is important, says Siddhartha Mukherjee, a medical oncologist at Columbia University, New York, USA, because our interpretation of concepts depends on our understanding of the past. A diagnosis of cancer, as for any illness, is of course still unwelcome; yet, in the second decade of the 21st century, the hopelessness and despair that such a diagnosis meant only 50 years ago is hard to imagine. Why is it that modern medicine off ers justifi ed hope and respite to many patients with cancer and, in fact, an absolute cure for some? Mukherjee off ers an eminently readable history. Although cancer has been known to man from antiquity, as evidenced in mention of breast tumours in the Edwin Smith papyrus of 2500 BC, it was the advent of anaesthesia and asepsis that emboldened surgeons in the late 1800s to go where no surgeon had gone before and perform heroic surgeries in an attempt to cure. The heady days after World War 2 saw bolder physicians—including Sidney Farber, Emil Frei, and Emil Freireich—who with the right mix of serendipity, educated guesswork, insight, obstinacy, guts, passion, optimism, and compassion for their patients made a cure for cancer their mantra. Mary Lasker, with indomi table zeal and charm, opened political and other doors for research funds. But the real heroes of cancer, says Mukherjee, are the patients who have stoically borne the terrors of untried therapies in their attempt to vanquish cancer and fi ght death. Mukherjee ties up seemingly diff erent aspects of the history of cancer, from cause to cure, with apparent ease. The tobacco menace, randomised trials, the race to fi nd tumour viruses, oncogenes, and magic bullets—and false prophets—make their presence felt. That scientifi c interpretation and progress is done in a particular social frame of reference is clear when you realise that the ancient Greeks, who contributed greatly to fl uid mechanics, saw health and illness as a balance between the four fl uids, the humours. In recent times, patient advocacy groups have guided the course of disease management. Medical thinking is often nonlinear and, often, advances in diverse fi elds aff ect our approach to cancer. Mukherjee intersperses history with touching stories of patients in his clinic to illustrate that although progress has indeed been made, the war on cancer has just begun.

Film Rights to ‘The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer’ Acquired by Stand Up To Cancer, for Probable 7-Part TV Documentary (Also see Book Review in this issue by Robert C. Young, MD)

Film Rights to ‘The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer’ Acquired by Stand Up To Cancer, for Probable 7-Part TV Documentary (Also see Book Review in this issue by Robert C. Young, MD)

Review: ‘The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer,’ by Siddhartha Mukherjee (Also see related news article in this issue)

Review: ‘The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer,’ by Siddhartha Mukherjee (Also see related news article in this issue)