The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
In 1977, a University of Oxford statistician named Richard Peto pointed out a simple yet puzzling biological fact: We humans should have a lot more cancer than mice, but we don’t.
Peto’s argument was beguilingly simple. Every time a cell divides, there’s a small chance it will gain a mutation that speeds its growth. Cells that accumulate several of these mutations may become cancerous. The bigger an animal is, the more cells it has, and the longer an animal lives, the more times its cells divide. We humans undergo about 10,000 times as many cell divisions as mice — and thus should be far more likely to get cancer.
Yet humans and mice have roughly the same lifetime risk of cancer, a circumstance that has come to be known as Peto’s paradox.
Share this article
A number of scientists have speculated that large, long-lived animals must evolve extra cancer-fighting weapons. And if that’s true, they reason, then the biggest, longest-lived animals should have an especially big arsenal. Otherwise, these species would go extinct.
In The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Joshua D. Schiffman, a pediatric oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, and his colleagues report that elephants appear to be exceptional cancer fighters, using a special set of proteins to kill off damaged cells.
Read full, original post: Elephants: Large, Long-Living and Less Prone to Cancer
