Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Explaining Peto’s Paradox.

  • COMMENTARY
  • Published:
European Journal of Epidemiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Though, Peto and colleagues first described this paradox earlier, see, e.g., [2, 3].

  2. I refer here to classical statistical methods typically taught at the undergraduate level, namely those that emphasize statistical significance. Appeal to Neyman in the context of the causal the causal inference literature in epidemiology is different; this draws upon the methods Neyman advanced in his Ph.D. thesis, now deployed in the potential outcomes approach.

References

  1. Peto R. The need for ignorance in cancer research. In Duncan, R. editor. the Encyclopedia of Medical Ignorance. 1984; pp. 129–133.

  2. Peto R, Roe FJC, Lee PN, Levy L, Clack J. Cancer and ageing in mice and men. Br J Cancer. 1975;32(4):411–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Peto R, Epidemiology, Multistage Models, and Short-term Mutagenicity Tests. In Hiatt HH, Watson JD, Winsten JA, editors, Origins of Human Cancer: New York, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1977:1403–1428 (reprinted in Int J Epidemiol 2016;45:621–637).

  4. Balmain A. The critical roles of somatic mutations and environmental tumor-promoting agents in cancer risk. Nat Genet. 2020;52:1139–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lochhead P, Chan AT, Nishihara R, et al. Etiologic field effect: reappraisal of the field effect concept in cancer predisposition and progression. Mod Pathol. 2015;28(1):14–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rafaeva M, Erler JT. Framing cancer progression: influence of the organ- and tumour-specific matrisome. FEBS J. 2020;287(8):1454–77.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nunney L. Resolving Peto’s paradox: Modeling the potential effects of size-related metabolic changes, and of the evolution of immune policing and cancer suppression. Evol Appl. 2020;13(7):1581–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Tollis M, Boddy AM, Maley CC. Peto’s Paradox: how has evolution solved the problem of cancer prevention? BMC Biol. 2017;15(1):1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hochberg ME, Noble R. J. A framework for how environment contributes to cancer risk. Ecol Lett. 2017;20(2):117–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Abegglen LM, Caulin AF, Chan A, Lee K, Robinson R, Campbell MS, et al. Potential mechanisms for cancer resistance in elephants and comparative cellular response to DNA damage in humans. JAMA. 2015;314:1850–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Effron M, Griner L, Benirschke K. Nature and rate of neoplasia found in captive wild mammals, birds, and reptiles at necropsy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1977;59:185–98.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Beatty J. Why do biologists argue like they do? Philos Sci. 1997;64:432–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Davey Smith G, Relton CL, Brennan P. Chance, choice and cause in cancer aetiology: individual and population perspectives. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(3):605–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Plutynski A. Is cancer a matter of luck? Biol Philos. 2021;36(1):3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tomasetti C, Vogelstein B. Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions. Science. 2015;347(6217):78–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Brennan P, Davey Smith G. Identifying Novel Causes of Cancers to Enhance Cancer Prevention: New Strategies Are Needed JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021; djab204, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djab204.

  17. Drexler M. The Cancer Miracle Isn’t a Cure. It’s Prevention. Magazine of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 2019.

  18. Hill AB The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1965; 58:295–300.

  19. Krieger N, Davey Smith G. The tale wagged by the DAG: broadening the scope of causal inference and explanation for epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):1787–808.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Krieger N, Davey Smith G, Response. FACEing reality: productive tensions between our epidemiological questions, methods and mission. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):1852–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Russo F, Williamson J. Interpreting causality in the health sciences. Int Stud Philos Sci. 2007;21(2):157–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Broadbent A. Inferring causation in epidemiology: mechanisms, black boxes, and contrasts. In Illari, P., Russo, F., Williamson, J., editors. Causality in the sciences. Oxford; 2011. pp. 45–69.

  23. Broadbent A. Philosophy of Epidemiology. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Reiss, J. (2015). A pragmatist theory of evidence. Philosophy of Science, 82(3), 341-362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lewontin RC. The analysis of variance and the analysis of causes. Am J Human Genetics 1974;26:400–411 (reprinted Int J Epidemiol 2006;35: 520–525).

  26. Nowak MA, Waclaw B. Genes, environment, and “bad luck”. Science. 2017;355(6331):1266–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The author declares that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Washington University in St. Louis, Philosophy, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Anya Plutynski

Authors
  1. Anya Plutynski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anya Plutynski.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Plutynski, A. On Explaining Peto’s Paradox.. Eur J Epidemiol 38, 1245–1250 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-022-00920-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-022-00920-2

Search

Navigation