> A report in the July 13 New England Journal of Medicine that described a
> study of 90,000 twins concluded that "genetics" accounted for a small
> portion of cancers, with "environment" playing the major role. The NEJM
> editors really goofed up on this one.
thank you so much for bringing this reference re:rebuttal up here...
I immediately remember an epidemiologic study about Japanese that
immigrated to Hawai and getting local cancer; however, this was traced
back to a genetic defect they brought with them...
Anyway, molecular toxicology is on its way to show on which GENES the
environment is acting, right?
And when an environmental carcinogen is identified, i.e. asbestos, the
major grant distributors seem not to have supported research over
several decades to help stop cancer...