
Texas cancer researcher was called ‘foolish’, then won the Nobel Prize (2018) - new_guy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/25/texas-scientist-was-called-foolish-arguing-immune-system-could-fight-cancer-then-he-won-nobel-prize/
======
gojomo
In the very early 80s, as a middle-school student in the suburbs of Houston
with a new Apple ][+, I attended a personal computing show downtown.

One of the booths was showing off a game, called "Killer T-Cell" if I remember
correctly, based on some local university research. You'd move a little T-Cell
around, through a changing pink maze of good tissue, to absorb & destroy any
cancerous (purple?) cells that popped up.

It used hi-res mode but seemed to be played on a grid based on the Apple ][+'s
low-res mode – and sometimes that mode flashed through as well. (I can't
remember if that was a glitch or purposeful effect.) It was pretty crude in
graphics and gameplay, but we bought it, for maybe $5 or $10, on a 5.25"
floppy – moreso for the novelty and intellectual content than anything else.

Over 37 years ago, that game conveyed to me the idea that people probably get
a lot of microcancers all the time, which are routinely cleaned up by the
immune system's T-cells, and only become a problem when the immune system is
finally overwhelmed or tricked.

Dr. Allison's Wikipedia page suggests he was at Houston's MD Anderson Cancer
Center at that time, in his early 30s. I wonder if the game was motivated by
his research... or even if he was the person who sold me that game.

~~~
antoncohen
The professor that created "Killer T-Cell" was Dr. Elton Stubblefield[1][2].
Both Dr. Elton Stubblefield and Dr. James Allison were at University of Texas
MD Anderson Center in Houston.

[1] [https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/10/28/Beating-cancer-
the-v...](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/10/28/Beating-cancer-the-video-
way/9982404625600/)

[2]
[http://jplaffont.photoshelter.com/image/I0000BBbrdiNVlfI](http://jplaffont.photoshelter.com/image/I0000BBbrdiNVlfI)

~~~
gojomo
Thank you! My searches had turned up nothing. (Was something like Lexis-Nexus
needed to find that old UPI story?)

------
ramraj07
As some context, in 2001, a couple of scientists many might consider to be the
closest to the "leaders of cancer research" wrote a seminal review in the
journal Cell called as "hallmarks of cancer" where they set out to define 7
essential (or what they thought was essential) things that a tumor has to do
to be defined as cancerous.

That list did not include any mention whatsoever of the immune system. IIRC
the only mention of the immune system was in one sentence deep in the review
where they just casually disregard it.

I was still in high school when this review came out so I probably can't say I
would have thought differently but at least to me that review was indicative
of the fairly myopic way research happens in general, even today. Imagine this
- two of the leaders of the field who are supposed to fill out ten pages of
all the things that could affect or be affected by a developing cancer, and it
did not fathom to the that the immune system had something to do with it?

The more outrageous thing is its not unheard of that the immune system has a
role to play. People had suspected a long time that even chemo therapy in
general only works via the immune response. It's the level of insulation
between immunologists and cancer biologists that was to blame. People just
decided to stick to one gene or disease and really didn't want to give a shit
about anything else happening in biology with serious thought. No wonder it
has taken us so long!

And if you think Im being too harsh, a decade later in 2011 the same authors
wrote an amended review to update their original. By now it had become obvious
that the immune system presented both a formidable barrier at first and an
essential ally in later steps for any cancer to be able to grow and thrive.
Don't know about you, but that sounds like an essential "Hallmark" of cancer
to me. But then of course lest we correct ourselves, the researchers just
grouped the immune checkpoint as one of the several other "supplemental"
hallmarks that were discovered since.

~~~
Retric
Being factually incorrect does not mean they made a mistake.

The correct response to _every_ science idea is extreme skepticism without
evidence. That’s not to say we should avoid gathering evidence, just that the
default needs to be conservative.

~~~
kosievdmerwe
The problem is that the more established scientists can play politics and
deny/reduce funding for the "crazy" idea.

There needs to be balance. I see people religiously hold to the orthodoxy of
scientific knowledge rather than the scientific method. But there's also the
case where established scientists are financially reliant on what the
orthodoxy is as that's what their research is about.

The world is complicated and not intuitive and I'm aware there's a distinction
between rejection and skepticism, but I feel that people err to rejection much
too easily.

Some examples of the weirdness of the world: Quantum mechanics and the fact
that it's possible to build a windpowered land vehicle that travels directly
down wind faster than the wind.

Trying to find other examples, I've run across Boltzmann who committed suicide
in 1906 likely due to all the pressure he faced trying to get people to accept
the idea atoms exist.

~~~
GeekyBear
>The problem is that the more established scientists can play politics

One of my favorite examples of how religiously dogmatic scientists can be
about existing theory is centered around the discovery of quasicrystals.

Daniel Shechtman won the Nobel prize for discovering a form of crystals that
formed regular non-repeating patterns like Penrose tiles or the tiles used on
some Mosques.

As evidence, he had electron microscope images of the materiel, very clearly
proving the veracity of his discovery, yet double Nobel laureate Linus Pauling
took particular pleasure in making his life a living hell, declaring that
"there is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasiscientists".

>In an interview this year with the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, Shechtman
said: "People just laughed at me." He recalled how Linus Pauling, a colossus
of science and a double Nobel laureate, mounted a frightening "crusade"
against him. After telling Shechtman to go back and read a crystallography
textbook, the head of his research group asked him to leave for "bringing
disgrace" on the team.

[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/05/nobel-
prize-...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/05/nobel-prize-
chemistry-work-quasicrystals)

You would think that scientists would be willing to accept physical evidence
even if it isn't covered by existing theory, but sadly, they are perfectly
willing to reject it.

~~~
Retric
I think we need to separate cases with actual evidence like what you are
describing from default behavior. With a little evidence you can defend
spending a little more resources studying the same thing. Over time that
feedback loop works to both efficiently spend money and change orthodoxy.

That’s different from saying X seems likely based on gut feeling or whatever.
In the case with zero evidence the goal is to find the cheapest way to gather
any support and this initial effort is generally cheap enough to self fund. If
not, looking for funding outside of normal channels is a viable option.

That proof of concept stage is something of a road block, but less so than
generally portrayed.

------
mrosett
This stuff matters. I was fortunate enough to join a
[trial]([https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00636168](https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00636168))
for Yervoy the summer before it was approved by the FDA. Based on my reading
of the outcomes, there's a 1-in-4 chance that I'd be dead if I hadn't gotten
the drug through that trial. (It was initially double-blind but has since been
unblinded, so I know I was dosed with it.)

------
Grustaf
I wonder if there are Nobel prize winners that were never called foolish.

~~~
chubot
It reminds me of the "sounds like a bad idea" / "is a good idea" Venn diagram
for startups.

If it sounded like a good idea and was a good idea, then a bunch of people
would have already tried it. There would be steady progress by many people,
and steady competition. There would be no "breakthrough" by a single person /
company.

If it sounded like a bad idea and was a bad idea, then either nobody tried it,
or a contrarian tried it and quietly failed.

------
jameszol
This reminds me of a book called The Power of Starting Something Stupid, by
Richie Norton. The book tells several stories just like this one, where it
seems like peers or others are criticizing your work as “stupid” but you get
it done anyways because you know it is worthwhile, then finally the world
rewards you handsomely for it.

------
ngcc_hk
Nothing new. Read the about paradigm shift. You cannot work if you doubt every
library you used may be hacked (or your assumption or idea is wrong about
field X). Even if it is wrong obviously eg black body radiation you still
continue. What one should know how it is not if but when the library was
hacked (or your assumption is wrong), ...

------
ilrwbwrkhv
[https://outline.com/D2GuNJ](https://outline.com/D2GuNJ)

------
squirrelicus
Relevant: [https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/26/rule-genius-in-not-
out...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/26/rule-genius-in-not-out/)

tl;dr

The kinds of ideas that people who innovate come up with are found at the
extremes of convention, and are not distinguishable from crazy whether they
are right or wrong, and

You should expect an innovator to produce dumb ideas all the time. In other
words, forgive the smart, for they know not when they dumb.

Edit: this is also why we can be justified praising Elon Musk for SpaceX and,
to a lesser extent Tesla, and also ignore complete and utter nonsense like
Hyperloop and his cave submarine.

------
negamax
Tyranny of success..

------
sorenn111
I think this lends credence to the Thiel/Eric Weinstein notion of allowing
scientists and innovators to be irreverent because many new discoveries have
to run against the grain. I've heard Weinstein postulate one of the great
strengths of Western education is the fostering of such irreverence.

~~~
RandomTisk
I've heard physicist Michio Kaku say something similar, that western thought
historically has rewarded the mavericks but that eastern thought has tended
towards a "the tallest blade of grass is cut down first" mentality. I think it
was him who said that had Bill Gates been born in China, his peers would have
made his success very unlikely.

~~~
papermill
This is simply historically false. From Galileo and copernicus to even the
scientists positing germ theory in the 1800s, mavericks who fought against
orthodoxy have been persecuted. Even today, in our colleges, "mavericks" are
punished and attacked. Our most famous maverick, Socrates, was forced to
commit suicide.

It's true bill gates wouldn't have amounted to much had he been born in 1950s
china because china was heavily undeveloped. But had he been born later in the
60s or 70s with china opening up, he could have been a Jack Ma.

------
new_guy
Full Title: A Texas scientist was called ‘foolish’ for arguing the immune
system could fight cancer. Then he won the Nobel Prize.

It got a little mangled with the length constraint.

~~~
jhbadger
And in-between the critiques of his idea and the prize winning, Allison
actually showed evidence that checkpoint blockade worked. That's what kind of
annoys me about stories that describe science in these terms. It's as if the
authors want the reader to take away the moral "Don't criticize scientists
with seemingly crazy ideas; they might be right!". But criticizing crazy ideas
up until the point where they are shown not to be crazy is exactly how science
works.

~~~
doitLP
True, but it is also important to be aware of the hand-wavy hubris/entrenched
viewpoints that might prevent those ideas from having the chance to prove
themselves right. “Science proceeds one funeral at a time”

~~~
chrisbrandow
It’s a fundamental tension in the scientific method. We create models for how
reality works. We _know_ that they are imperfect and incomplete, but at times
we forget and therefore treat an idea or even observation that violates the
model as “impossible”.

Multiple observations ultimately dispel this failure but single observations
are easy to dismiss. This is also why crazy but ultimately correct ideas are
difficult to distinguish from crazy and wrong ideas.

And academics spend a lot of time teaching people to understand the models,
and are always looking for errors that arise from an incomplete or incorrect
understanding of the models. So, it is very natural to treat new theories that
violate an incomplete model the same way. Especially in fields like medicine
where it is nearly impossible to truly isolate single factors and outcomes.

