Tobacco Documents Online

NEWSLETTER Publish&3 by the American Cincer Soc'ety, Inc. Septembe.c, 1956 VIRUSES Nobelist Wendell M. Stenley (U. of Calif.) blesscd the virus theory of cancer etiology. Concluding a scz:oJ,arly review of' the mounting evidence, he st._reC: "The experimenr2ll evidence now available is consistent with the idea that viruses are the etio- logical agents of most, if not all, cance,, including cancer in man. Acceptance of this idea as a workinl,- hypothesis is urged because it will result in the doing off experiments that might otherwise be left undone, experiments that could result in the solving of this great problem. The past few years hnve seen the development of important new knowledge and of especi.all; powerfull. new tools, and if we take full advantage of these we could easily tip thn scale tcwards the solution of the cancer problem." He paid tribute to Duran-Reynals, Oberling, and a few others who long ago speculated, on substantial evidence, that viruses caused cancer and who were abused for their boldness. He acknowledged the considerable contributions of Borrel, Rous, Andrewes,Gey, B:ttner, Lwoff, and many others, in- cluding Fraenkel-Conrat and Williams in his owrn laboratory, for supplying important pieces in the virus jigsaw puzzi(-. "Although Rous, Andrewes, Gey, Duran-Reynals, Oberling and and a few others have provided eLoquent and pPrsuasive -_es~.;.T:;.')ny fc.- the acceptance of viruses as the etiological agents of can:er, t+: majority of the cancer investigators have tended to disregard this testimony," he said. "Evidence for the virus etiolcu-of cance~: has come from so many different Laborar.,~ries and has been of such~good quality and quantity that I find it very difficult to understand why so many investigators have continued to have such a firm blind spot with respect to the virus causation of cancer. However, during the past few years there does seem to have boen a definite change in the attitude...In 1952 1 stated that ':~aenty years ago the relationship between viruses and cancer was scarcely mentioned and when it was, e-te had to speak softly._ Today large and wPll attended con erences are held on this same subject and virus-induced tumors in animals ird plants are accepted generally.' The trend has certainly been !., th,.! right direction, but I msst say that I continue to be amazed at the willingness of so many in- vestigators to accept viruses as etiological agents for animal cancers and their unwillingness to consider them of etiological imror.tance in cancers of man. Cancer is a biotogical and not a theological proble-al. Basic biological phenomena generally do not differ strikingly as one goes from one species to nnothpr, Cahaear 9.a tjaaicaily a problem in grodth, and there is no reason to believe that the growth uf most human cells is different ',aAicelly fron the Browth of nxyat anlinnl ca11n." The Third National Cancer Conference in Detruit, .Tune 4-6, 1956. 202224a236