Turning Upside Down the Mode of Science to Emphasize and Harness the Impact of Environmental Communication

Chapter

Abstract

Bridging theory and practice remains the very own endeavor of clinicians; such bridging is aimed at expelling science from the ‘niches’ and at establishing the upside down of the scientific mode. The suggested steady on-going transition of the phenotypes of biological systems objects has become an object of institutionalized scientific interest to ultimately conceive transient evolutionarily confined systems stages or even heterogeneity among metastatic tumor sites. Providing methodologies for reconstructing the situative communicative expression of systems participators is the novel field of evolution-adjusted tumor pathophysiology. The evolution theory is based on the assumption that biological processes are interwoven with communication and represented and reproduced through communication acts to facilitate communicative expression: A tumor system not only consists of diverse cell types and pathways—termed ‘tumor systems objects’—but also comprises all components of action insofar that these components are oriented in terms of diverse cell types. The components of action are organized in communication acts. Communication within a biological system is closely linked to descriptively accessible ‘learning’ processes, contingency programming, adoption of the players, and the systems objects within a tumor system. An evolution theory should operationalize the ‘metabolism’, facilitating the spinoff of novel systems functions. Furthermore, such a theory is aimed at covering some practical, i.e., diagnostically and therapeutically relevant issues to convince the scientific community that the evolutionary concept lacks proper appreciation, both for diagnostic and therapeutic issues. For many diseases, such as metastatic tumors that have undergone countless years of evolution, a stepwise and evolution-adjusted therapy rather than drastic therapeutic interventions based on theme-dependent knowledge may be an alternative for achieving medical improvements. Thus, paradox situations of cellular rationalization, deformation, and communication processes need to be decoded or, in other words, it is necessary to uncover inconsistencies within tumor cell compartments or distinct topologies of aggregated action effects.

References

  1. 1.
    Reichle A (2009) Tumor systems need to be rendered usable for a new action-theoretical abstraction: the starting point for novel therapeutic options. Curr Cancer Ther Rev 5:232–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gatenby RA, Vincent TL (2003) An evolutionary model of carcinogenesis. Cancer Res 63(19):6212–6220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reichle A (2010) Bridging theory and therapeutic practice: from generalized disease models to particular patients. In: From molecular to modular tumor therapy: the tumor microenvironment, vol 3. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9531-2_1Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reichle A, Hildebrandt GC (2008) Systems biology: a therapeutic target for tumor therapy. Cancer Microenviron 1(1):159–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reichle A, Hildebrandt GC (2009) Principles of modular tumor therapy. Cancer Microenviron 2(Suppl 1):227–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barham J (2012) Normativity, agency, and life. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 43(1):92–103. (Epub 2011 Jun 21)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reichle A, Vogelhuber M, Feyerabend S, Suedhoff T, Schulze M, Hubner J, Oberneder R, Baier M, Ruebel A, Birkholz K, Bakhshandeh-Bath A, Andreesen R (2011) A phase II study of imatinib with pioglitazone, etoricoxib, dexamethasone, and low-dose treosulfan: combined anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and angiostatic treatment in patients (pts) with castration-refractory prostate cancer (CRPC). J Clin Oncol 29:(suppl; abstr 4599)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reichle A, Hildebrandt GC (2010) The comparative uncovering of tumor systems biology by modularly targeting tumor-associated inflammation. In: From molecular to modular tumor therapy: the tumor microenvironment, vol 3, part 4. Springer, pp 287–303. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9531-2_13Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pitteri SJ, Kelly-Spratt KS, Gurley KE, Kennedy J, Buson TB, Chin A, Wang H, Zhang Q, Wong CH, Chodosh LA, Nelson PS, Hanash SM, Kemp CJ (2011) Tumor microenvironment-derived proteins dominate the plasma proteome response during breast cancer induction and progression. Cancer Res 71(15):5090–5100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paulitschke V et al (2010) Secretome proteomics, a novel tool for biomarkers discovery and for guiding biomodulatory therapy approaches. In: From molecular to modular tumor therapy: the tumor microenvironment, vol 3, part 6. Springer, pp 405–431. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9531-2_21Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiessling F, Lederle W et al (2010) Early detection of systems response: molecular and functional imaging of angiogenesis. In: Reichle A (ed) From molecular to modular tumor therapy: the tumor microenvironment, vol 3, part 6. Springer, pp 385–403. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9531-2_20Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5):646–674. (Review)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heinz S, Benner C, Spann N, Bertolino E, Lin YC, Laslo P, Cheng JX, Murre C, Singh H, Glass CK (2010) Simple combinations of lineage-determining transcription factors prime cis-regulatory elements required for macrophage and B cell identities. Mol Cell 38(4):576–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sarrazin S, Sieweke M (2011) Integration of cytokine and transcription factor signals in hematopoietic stem cell commitment. Semin Immunol 23(5):326–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Hematology/OncologyUniversity Hospital RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations