TOFT better explains experimental results in cancer research than SMT (comment on DOI 10.1002/bies.201100025 and DOI 10.1002/bies.201100022).Comments Comment on: Bioessays. 2011 May;33(5):341-3; PMID: 21503936, Comment on: Bioessays. 2011 May;33(5):332-40; PMID: 21503935

摘要

The debate [1, 2] in this journal between Dr. Vaux’s support of the somatic mutation theory (SMT) and Drs. Soto and Sonnenschein’s support of the tissue organization ?eld theory (TOFT) re?ects some of the best elements of the scienti?c process. Science progresses through observation, experiment and (in this case) the discussion of competing theories [3]. Basically SMT says that changes in the DNA of a somatic cell drive the process of carcinogenesis, and TOFT says the proximal cause of cancer is an alteration of inter-cellular communication. Drs. Vaux, Soto and Sonnenschein provide arguments supporting their preferred theories of carcinogenesis. A key additional point not fully considered is how well each theory can explain the results supporting the other theory. I argue that TOFT explanations for results used to support the SMT are stronger than SMT explanations of results used to support the TOFT.