Cancer stem cells modulate patterns and processes of evolution in cancers

The clonal evolution (CE) model and the cancer stem cell (CSC) model are two independent models of cancers, yet recent data shows intersections between the two models. This article explores the impacts of the CSC model on the CE model. I show that CSC restriction, which depends on CSC frequency in cancer cell populations and on the probability of dedifferentiation of cancer non-stem cells (non-CSC) into CSCs, can favor or impede some patterns of evolution (linear or branched evolution) and some processes of evolution (drift, evolution by natural selection, complex adaptations). Taking CSC restriction into account for the CE model thus has implications for the way in which we understand the patterns and processes of evolution, and can also provide new leads for therapeutic interventions

The Multiple Layers of the Tumor Environment

The notion of tumor microenvironment (TME) has been brought to the forefront of recent scientific literature on cancer. However, there is no consensus on how to define and spatially delineate the TME. We propose that the time is ripe to go beyond an all-encompassing list of the components of the TME, and to construct a multilayered view of cancer. We distinguish six layers of environmental interactions with the tumor and show that they are associated with distinct mechanisms, and ultimately with distinct therapeutic approaches

Beyond the tumour microenvironment

In contrast to the once dominant tumour-centric view of cancer, increasing attention is now being paid to the tumour microenvironment (TME), generally understood as the elements spatially located in the vicinity of the tumour. Thinking in terms of TME has proven extremely useful, in particular because it has helped identify and comprehend the role of nongenetic and noncell-intrinsic factors in cancer development. Yet some current approaches have led to a TME-centric view, which is no less problematic than the former tumour-centric vision of cancer, insofar as it tends to overlook the role of components located beyond the TME, in the 'tumour organismal environment' (TOE). In this minireview, we highlight the explanatory and therapeutic shortcomings of the TME-centric view and insist on the crucial importance of the TOE in cancer progression

The Boundaries of Development

International audienceThis special issue of Biological Theory is focused on development; it raises the problem of the temporal and spatial boundaries of development. From a temporal point of view, when does development start and stop? From a spatial point of view, what is it exactly that "develops", and is it possible to delineate clearly the developing entity? This issue explores the possible answers to these questions, and thus sheds light on the definition of development itself

Opinion: Why science needs philosophy

International audienc

Why science needs philosophy

\textgreater A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. \textgreater \textgreater Albert Einstein, Letter to Robert Thornton, 1944 Despite the tight historical links between science and philosophy, present-day scientists often perceive philosophy as completely different from, and even antagonistic to, science. We argue here that, to the contrary, philosophy can have an important and productive impact on science. Despite the tight historical links between science and philosophy, hearkening back to Plato, Aristotle, and others (here evoked with Raphael’s famous School of Athens), present-day scientists often perceive philosophy as completely different from, and even antagonistic to, science. To the contrary, we believe philosophy can have an important and productive impact on science. Image credit: Shutterstock.com/Isogood_patrick. We illustrate our point with three examples taken from various fields of the contemporary life sciences. Each bears on cutting-edge scientific research, and each has been explicitly acknowledged by practicing researchers as a useful contribution to science. These and other examples show that philosophy’s contribution can take at least four forms: the clarification of scientific concepts, the critical assessment of scientific assumptions or methods, the formulation of new concepts and theories, and the fostering of dialogue between different sciences, as well as between science and society. ### Conceptual Clarification and Stem Cells. First, philosophy offers conceptual clarification. Conceptual clarifications not only improve the precision and utility of scientific terms but also lead to novel experimental investigations because the choice of a given conceptual framework strongly constrains how experiments are conceived. The definition of stem cells is a prime example. Philosophy has a long tradition of investigating properties, and the tools in use in this tradition

Why science needs philosophy

A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth

Reuniting philosophy and science to advance cancer research

Cancers rely on multiple, heterogeneous processes at different scales, pertaining to many biomedical fields. Therefore, understanding cancer is necessarily an interdisciplinary task that requires placing specialised experimental and clinical research into a broader conceptual, theoretical, and methodological framework. Without such a framework, oncology will collect piecemeal results, with scant dialogue between the different scientific communities studying cancer. We argue that one important way forward in service of a more successful dialogue is through greater integration of applied sciences (experimental and clinical) with conceptual and theoretical approaches, informed by philosophical methods. By way of illustration, we explore six central themes: (i) the role of mutations in cancer; (ii) the clonal evolution of cancer cells; (iii) the relationship between cancer and multicellularity; (iv) the tumour microenvironment; (v) the immune system; and (vi) stem cells. In each case, we examine open questions in the scientific literature through a philosophical methodology and show the benefit of such a synergy for the scientific and medical understanding of cancer

Stemness ontology and therapeutic strategies (Proceedings of the CAPE International Workshops, 2012. Part I: IHPST, Paris - CAPE, Kyoto philosophy of biology workshop)

November 4th-5th, 2012 at Kyoto University. Organizers: Hisashi Nakao & Pierre-Alain Braillar