As paraphrased in the article, Davies's claims appear either misleading or lacking substantive content. (When he says "activating ancient genes" does this just mean "activating genes that are inactive in some cell types but have been strongly preserved because they are used in other cell types"? If so, how is this different than the mainstream understanding of cancer?) However, the best criticism I've been able to find keeps getting bogged down in disputes over terminology, e.g., http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/11/20/aaargh-physici... .
1 comment
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 8.3 ms ] thread