James Watson's Radical Idea: Antioxidants May Be Causing Cancer
    By Hank Campbell | January 9th 2013 04:49 PM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote in a paper "We now have no general of influence, much less power ... leading our country's War on Cancer."

    On the $100 million U.S. project to determine the DNA changes that drive nine forms of cancer: It is "not likely to produce the truly breakthrough drugs that we now so desperately need," he said. And on the idea that antioxidants such as those in colorful berries fight cancer: "The time has come to seriously ask whether antioxidant use much more likely causes than prevents cancer."

    What does he mean? 

    Watson says researchers should be targeting features that all cancer cells, especially those in metastatic cancers, have in common. Like oxygen radicals. Those forms of oxygen rip apart other components of cells, such as DNA. That is why antioxidants, which have become near-ubiquitous additives in grocery foods from snack bars to soda, are thought to be healthful: they mop up damaging oxygen radicals.

    It gets more complicated once cancer is present. Radiation therapy and many chemotherapies kill cancer cells by generating oxygen radicals, which trigger cell suicide. If a cancer patient is eating those berries and other antioxidants, it can actually keep therapies from working, Watson proposed.

    "Everyone thought antioxidants were great," he said. "But I'm saying they can prevent us from killing cancer cells."

    Most disappointing was one response from "one eminent cancer biologist who asked not to be identified so as not to offend Watson."

    If Watson is wrong, he is wrong. No one minds disputing Joseph Mercola or Matt Damon or Michele Bachmann, why is Watson going to get a free pass? 

    Citation: Jim Watson (how do you know you're still a science badass? You can write a paper as 'Jim Watson' and everyone knows exactly who you are), 'Oxidants, antioxidants and the current incurability of metastatic cancers', Open Biology Published online January 8, 2013 doi: 10.1098/rsob.120144 (open access)

    DNA pioneer James Watson takes aim at "cancer establishments" by Sharon Begley, Reuters

    Comments

    Cancer cells are not unlike normal cells in being able to utilize normal cellular repair mechanisms. Without a doubt activation of normal cellular repair mechanisms by individual cancer cells can extend the lifespan of the cells and may possibly impede attempts to treat cancer by administering non-specific toxins to patients. Such an observation hardly justifies the bold suggestion that antioxidants pathways, the study of which have taught biologists much about normal cellular repair, may be among the causes of cancer. A statement to that effect is provocative, but not insightful. Anyway, the news is filled with reports of innovative therapies derived from the better understanding of cellular regeneration and metabolism that has been learned since intensive study of molecular genomics was undertaken, some time after Franklin revealed the double helix to her elder, Pauling. What's radical, and I don't mean in the sense of causing any harm, but in the sense that it will lead to many changes, is elaboration of the idea that the disordered metabolism of a cancer cell could be corrected, so as to actually cure the disease.

    Raiful (not verified) | 01/12/13 | 16:05 PM
    Gerhard Adam
    I think the overall tone in asking whether Watson is right or wrong, misses the point.  The comments regarding antioxidants are only a small mention in the paper, and the anonymous response wasn't specifically related to that point, but was an overall comment on the paper.
    "There are a lot of interesting ideas in it, some of them sustainable by existing evidence, others that simply conflict with well-documented findings," said one eminent cancer biologist who asked not to be identified so as not to offend Watson. "As is often the case, he's stirring the pot, most likely in a very productive way."
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/09/us-usa-cancer-watson-idUSBRE90805N20130109
    In addition, the reference to antioxidants wasn't specifically to suggest that they cause cancers, as much as they may inadvertently end up protecting cancer cells, in the same manner in which they are supposed to protect normal cells.
    In light of the recent data strongly hinting that much of late-stage cancer's untreatability may arise from its possession of too many antioxidants, the time has come to seriously ask whether antioxidant use much more likely causes than prevents cancer.

    All in all, the by now vast number of nutritional intervention trials using the antioxidants β-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E and selenium have shown no obvious effectiveness in preventing gastrointestinal cancer nor in lengthening mortality [53]. In fact, they seem to slightly shorten the lives of those who take them. Future data may, in fact, show that antioxidant use, particularly that of vitamin E, leads to a small number of cancers that would not have come into existence but for antioxidant supplementation.
    http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/1/120144.full
    Which is a position that seems to be backed up with research.

    Research backs him up. A number of studies have shown that taking antioxidants such as vitamin E do not reduce the risk of cancer but can actually increase it, and can even shorten life. But drugs that block antioxidants - "anti-antioxidants" - might make even existing cancer drugs more effective.

    Anything that keeps cancer cells full of oxygen radicals "is likely an important component of any effective treatment," said cancer biologist Robert Benezra of Sloan-Kettering.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/09/us-usa-cancer-watson-idUSBRE90805N20130109

    It strikes me that the issue isn't the published paper as much as it is a single comment that relates to popularized notions of healthy eating.

    In effect, everyone has overlooked the context of this statement and is conflating Watson's actual statement that it "much more likely causes" than "prevents" cancers with being a scientific conclusion [although clearly it is not without merit].

    Mn-SOD is considered as one of the most effective antioxidant enzymes with anti-tumour activity. Experimental studies indicate that abnormally high levels of Mn-SOD, while suppressing cell growth, also increase the invasive potential of cancer cells.

    However, antioxidant protection therapy against free radicals should be used only with caution since its effects depend on the stage at which it is introduced. When used during the progression stage of cancer, it might actually stimulate growth of tumours through the enhanced survival of tumour cells.

    http://webmail.stuba.sk/~marian.valko/PDF/Chem-Biol-Interact_2006.pdf


    Gerhard Adam | 01/12/13 | 17:18 PM
    The problem with interfering with cellular repair mechanisms in order to enhance the effect of a cellular toxin is that the strategy is just nonspecific. It would be one more example of trying to kill off the villainous cancer cells to the advantage of the normal cell population. Nothing new there. And the tendency of cancer cells to make use of alternative metabolic pathways, as cancer cells do seem to be hyper-metabolic, enables them to be more likely selected for survival than cells under normal regulation. That means the cancer is more likely to survive the poison than the normal cells. Cancer cells can be called hyper-metabolic because they have a shortened interphase. No rest for the wicked.

    Raiful (not verified) | 01/13/13 | 21:53 PM
    Remember when Dr. Watson called the proposal to develop a "Shotgun" technique for rapid sequencing of the genome the "looney tunes" approach to the genome project. I do. Where would the Genome Project be now if anyone had listened to that? Where would the technology of gene sequencing be? And fortunately the people who invented the "Shotgun" technique were not deterred from their work by the attempt to ridicule them. Nobody's perfect.

    Raiful (not verified) | 01/13/13 | 22:08 PM
    Gerhard Adam
    I'm not clear on what "Dr. Watson" has to do with anything in this regard, since any element of name recognition automatically converts whatever is said into an argument from authority.  So, either the paper is evaluated for its content [regardless of the author] or we are into celebrity worship.
    Gerhard Adam | 01/13/13 | 22:41 PM