Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Curiosity is Key

“The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.”
– Albert Einstein

Throughout the course of this book there seemed to be one main theme: curiosity. Extensive knowledge of a subject or process can only get you so far – it’s when you question how far, that true science really begins.

The first breakthrough in cancer treatment began when doctors first realized that some cancers could be surgically removed. However, many patients’ cancer came back, and doctors were left wondering what went wrong. It wasn’t until an English surgeon named Charles Moore began to note the anatomy of each relapse that doctors soon figured out that surgical removal of cancer was an all-or-nothing process. For the first time, 99% wasn’t good enough. You had to remove it all, or the cancer came back.

So, in the spirit of science, a surgeon named William Halstead got curious in order to make sure he cured his cancer patients. I was shocked when reading about his “radical surgery” in which he would remove so much of the cancer and surrounding area that he would often permanently disfigure his patients. His mastectomies sometimes caused the shoulders to cave inward making it impossible to move the arm forward or sideways. Removing the lymph nodes often caused the arm to swell up like an elephant’s leg, which he appropriately referred to as “surgical elephantiasis”. Despite these obvious drawbacks, many of Halstead’s patients were cured of their cancer. Another step in the right direction.

The search for a cancer cure then expanded to include radiation as a form of treatment. As a Chicago physician noted in 1901 “I believe this treatment [radiation] is an absolute cure for all forms of cancer. I do not know what its limitations are.” As much as everyone wanted to believe this was true, a 21-year-old medical student named Emil Grubbe quickly discovered radiation’s limitations. While radiation did seem to shrink tumors, it only worked in treating local cancer and had little effect on tumors that had already metastasized. Marie Curie was another scientist who discovered the limitations of radiation. After being consistently exposed to large amounts of radiation, she died of leukemia in 1934. Grubbe also succumbed to the harmful effects of radiation, and had multiple forms of cancer throughout his body when he died. Willy Meyer, a New York surgeon, wrote in a 1932 letter that, “Cancer medicine has reached some terminus, and a new direction is needed.” It was time to get curious again.


It’s taken a lot of curiosity to get where we are with cancer treatment today, but we wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the individuals mentioned above. If there’s one thing I definitely learned throughout this seminar, it’s that you have to ask questions. Ask why things work, how they work, how else they could work, how long they work, etc. Progress is achieved through hard work, determination, and sheer curiosity. Albert Einstein said it best when he said, “The important thing is to not stop questioning.”

Mukherjee, Siddhartha. The Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer. New York: Scribner, 
2010. Print.

4 comments:

  1. Halstead's "radical surgery" was a very interesting part of the book. The way he kept removing more and more tissue in order to get rid of the cancer as though he thought having a disfigured body was way better than having cancer. I guess his main priority was to cure the patient of cancer, and would do all he could to get it done. As a patient, I am not sure I would want a disfigured body that could limit my personal life and cause other problems.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I completely agree with you Rachel. Curiosity is a quality that is present in many researchers, scientists, and surgeons. I believe that you need to have curiosity to find great answers. I also found William Halstead's radical surgeries very interesting while reading the book. If I was in Halstead's position, I would probably believe that removing the tissue surrounding a cancerous region would eliminate cancer from the body. However, did he weigh the choice between having cancer and removing essential tissues and muscles and deemed that cancer needed to be stopped in patients? Even though his surgeries tended to cure cancer from many of his patients, was this cure valued more than the patient's quality of life afterwards?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would like to hear more from the patients who underwent these drastic surgeries to remove their cancers. It would be very interesting to hear from them if they regretted the surgery and what quality of life they were able to lead afterwards. Did the joy of being of alive outweigh the struggle of also being horribly maimed?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The way that it sounds, it would have been more beneficial to just have that portion of their body amputated then to just have most of it missing. I could not imagine having a large chunk of my body essentially taken out of me. And to have all of that mass out of me, and still have a chance that the cancer could come back because they may have missed a spot of cancer, would not be worth. Just take my entire arm or leg, At least I know everything cancer-wise is gone, literally.

    ReplyDelete