Yesterday and today we had the 2021 Oklahoma GeroOncology symposium. This year it was a two-day online event via zoom. For both of the days, each of 5-6 speakers gave a 30 (20) min talk, followed by 40 min roundtable discussion by the speakers. Attendees may post questions with Q&A box or chat box. No recording for the talks.
Indeed, it is a fact that a great majority of cancers occurs with age. Although genetic predisposition-driven cancers can occur in early age (e.g., children's cancers; fortunately they are rare), sporadic cancers caused by somatic mutations usually occur later in life. The age factor in cancer is getting attention, both from cancer researchers and aging researchers.
Another reason for cancer-aging joint conference occurring more often is because the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Institute of Aging (NIA) are launching more joint programs and grant announcements lately. Leadership and direction. Or, if I say it bluntly, science can go to where the money is. Carrot and horse.
I am on cancer researchers' side. Most of the symposium speakers are aging researchers. Perhaps I wrote this before, but the differences in cultures and standard methodologies between aging researchers and cancer researchers are noticeable.
I'll cite three examples of the cultural differences.
(1) Research timespan is longer for aging research. Lab mice live up to 2.5-years. 2 year-old mice are considered equivalent of human 65 years old. Aging researchers regularly use 2 year old mice. If they are funded by NIA, they have better access to aged mice. In contrast, mouse-based cancer research tend to use shorter time (3, 6, or up to 12 months), because (i) we don't want to wait for 2 years, and (ii) keeping mice for 2 years is costly.
I was running a project that kept mice for 2 years (for an "aging and cancer" study using transgenic mice). But it is highly unusual for a cancer research project.
(2) Cancer research field is finely segmented by organs. Lung cancer specialists and colon cancer specialists have very different sets of knowledge. Specific organs have different modes of maintaining the organ, and the stem cells have different sets of markers. Previously I was looking at datasets from lung. Now I am working on data from another organ site. The difference is striking.
Apparently, aging researchers do not have much of this "segmentation by organs". Perhaps because aging is a systemic event, they seem to seek general principles common among many organs.
(3) Approaches (and, perhaps, types of researchers)
A main rationale for cancer research is "to cure cancer". Cancer is a disease, an unusual state that needs to be eradicated. In the past several decades, we have obtained huge knowledge on the nature of cancer with the slogan of "to cure cancer". Therapy development has always been the mainstream of cancer research.
Aging,..is aging a disease to be eradicated or intervened? Or is aging a natural state that may be modifiable? ...Aging studies seem to have to start from more basic questions; semantics, interpretations, and definitions.
That reminds me of differences between reductionist approaches and holistic approaches.
Both research fields use model systems and intervention agents. In both research fields, concepts of "pathways" and their manipulation with experiments are similar. Both research fields have been benefiting from recent technological advancements in single cell-level analysis of organs and cancers. Yet, I am under impression that aging research people excel at descriptive studies, while cancer research value experiments (I may be wrong).
The cultural differences may prove beneficial, as cultural interface sites are where innovation occurs. Or at least, to know the difference would be good for avoiding pitfalls while cancer researchers investigating aging-associated events. Good to know that what we value and what they value may be different.
Some time ago, I reviewed a manuscript on colon cancer. The authors, obviously from a different research field, did not do what colon cancer researchers do regularly, so I pointed that out and suggested to do the "routines". There were a few misinterpretations (or unusual/unorthodox ways of interpreting the data), too. I don't remember how editors handled the manuscript, but the manuscript was not accepted outright.
Later I learned that two other reviewers said nearly the same thing independently. I guess people with the same training background would read the manuscript in a similar manner and make similar comments.
In other words, we need to do our homework to work well in another research field.
Just logging a few of my thoughts.
