In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

2 Germ Warfar e The Case for Bacteria as Carcinogen If anyone wer e t o clai m toda y tha t ther e i s a causal relationshi p between bacteri a an d cancer , mos t cance r researchers would quickl y dismis s the idea . Suc h skepticis m i s th e produc t o f a histor y i n whic h som e researchers claime d tha t bacteri a and/o r viruse s wer e th e sol e etiologica l agents o f cancer . Agains t suc h unicausa l theorie s fo r a disease—o r variet y of diseases—as comple x a s cancer, skepticis m wa s warranted. However , th e skepticism ma y hav e overcompensate d fo r th e mor e extrem e claims . A review o f th e histor y o f claim s o f bacteria a s carcinogeni c agent s ma y lea d to a n intermediat e positio n betwee n extrem e skepticism—ther e i s n o relationship betwee n bacteri a an d cancer—an d extrem e advocacy—cance r is an infectiou s diseas e like tuberculosis , cause d b y a single bacterial species . The firs t ste p i n thi s exercis e i s t o demonstrat e tha t som e o f th e advocate s of a bacterial theor y o f cancer ha d a less than fai r hearing . One o f the classi c expression s o f extreme skepticis m wa s the firs t editio n of Jame s Ewing s Neoplastic Diseases (1919) . I n tha t boo k th e influentia l director o f what wa s then know n a s the Memorial Hospita l (no w Memoria l Sloan-Kettering Cance r Center ) pronounce d hi s diagnosis : "Th e parasiti c theory . . . appeale d t o th e ancients , wa s tacitl y accepte d throughou t th e Middle Ages , wa s definitel y argue d b y moder n observers , an d reache d th e height o f its popularity a s a scientific theor y abou t 1895 , but durin g th e las t fifteen year s i t ha s rapidl y los t ground , an d toda y fe w competen t observer s consider i t a s a possibl e explanatio n o f th e unknow n elemen t i n blasto matosis " (1919 : 114) . Ewing s positio n o n microbe s wa s a n extrem e one . He rejecte d a contemporar y stud y o f a bacteriu m tha t brough t abou t tumorlike growth s i n plant s (Agrobacterium tumefaciens), and h e als o rejecte d the wor k o f Rockefelle r Institut e researche r Peyto n Rou s o n chicke n sarcoma viruse s (117 , 121) . A t most , h e argued , studie s o f th e microbia l origin o f cance r sugges t tha t a microorganism "ma y hav e a special capacit y to excit e inflammator y processe s whic h ten d t o g o o n t o tumo r growth , 7 8 I Germ Warfare but the y offe r n o suppor t t o th e theor y o f a specifi c cance r parasit e livin g in symbiosi s wit h th e cancer-cel l an d constantl y stimulatin g it s growth " (125). Although Ewin g reporte d tha t interes t i n th e microbia l theor y o f cance r had bee n dyin g ou t afte r th e mid-1890s , vira l oncologist s toda y vie w th e first decad e o f the twentiet h centur y a s the originar y momen t o f their field . As Ewing s comments suggest , recognitio n fo r thei r fiel d wa s slow . I t gre w gradually ove r th e decade s a s studie s mounte d t o sho w evidenc e fo r vira l etiology i n a numbe r o f cancers . Rou s wa s no t honore d wit h th e Nobe l Prize unti l 1966 ; a s...

Share