Search

A traditional belief widespread across the biomedical community was that dietary habits and genetic predisposition were the basic factors causing colorectal cancer. In more recent times, however, a growing evidence has shown that other determinants can be very important in increasing (or reducing) incidence of this malignancy. The hypothesis that environmental and occupational risk factors are associated with colorectal cancer is gaining ground, and high risks of colorectal cancer have been reported among workers in some industrial branches. The aim of this study was to investigate the epidemiologic relationship between colorectal cancer and occupational exposures to several industrial activities, by means of a scientific literature review and meta-analysis. This work pointed out increased risks of colorectal cancer for labourers occupied in industries with a wide use of chemical compounds, such as leather (RR = 1.70, 95%CI: 1.24-2.34), basic metals (RR = 1.32, 95%CI: 1.07-1.65), plastic and rubber manufacturing (RR = 1.30, 95%CI: 0.98-1.71 and RR = 1.27, 95%CI: 0.92-1.76, respectively), besides workers in the sector of repair and installation of machinery exposed to asbestos (RR = 1.40, 95%CI: 1.07-1.84). Based on our results, the estimated crude excess risk fraction attributable to occupational exposure ranged from about 11% to about 15%. However, homogeneous pattern of association between colorectal cancer and industrial branches did not emerge from this review.

The announcement of "Artificial Life" by the Craig Venter group, and the media stir that arose from the news, provoked thoughts about the current technologies in contemporary science and the cultural tension of such projections on the media. The increasingly blurred boundaries between specialist and generalist media, while promising a wider appreciation of scientific discovery, potentially allow unrealistic, ideological claims to dictate scientific research. This is particularly evident in biology, where the pervading paradigm is still dominated by a physically naïve reductionism in which the only relevant causative layer is the molecular one. The reductionist hypothesis is that everything one observes is the result of an underlying molecular mechanism almost independent of the context in which it operates. Molecular mechanisms are often necessarily studied in isolation and therefore operate in unnatural conditions. The mechanistic view of biological regulation implies that we think of genes as intelligent agents. Here we try to critically analyze the motivations behind the spread of such unrealistic simplifications.

A contemporary pathology of science is outlined. This pathology suggests that "previous knowledge" drastically limits innovative thinking in science. In very raw "Bayesian" terms it is affirmed that a too rich and flexible a priori knowledge is detrimental to the appreciation of novelty coming from experimental results by both lowering the relative weight assigned to a posteriori contrasting evidence and adapting potentially revolutionary findings to an already existing frame.