70 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLIII. No. 1098 



The Cancer Prohlem. By "William Seaman 



Bainbridge. The Macmillan Company, 



1914. 



Within the last decade several books have 

 appeared dealing with the cancer problem; 

 those of Carl Lewin, P. Menetrier, W. Eoger 

 Williams, W. H. Woglom, and the encyclopedic 

 work of Jacob Wolff may be especially men- 

 tioned. Of those written in the English 

 language, the book by Williams appeared 

 seven years ago and Woglom's work treats 

 mainly of experimental cancer research. 



Dr. Bainbridge considers the cancer prob- 

 lem from many aspects; being a surgeon, 

 however, the author devotes the greater part 

 of his book to the clinical aspect of cancer 

 (2Y4 pages), while to the scientific side proper 

 142 pages are given. In the clinical part the 

 author gives much first-hand experience, 

 while in the scientific part he leans more or 

 less on the judgment of others, especially on 

 the writings of Bashford, and this part repre- 

 sents in part a summary of the reports of the 

 English Cancer Research Eimd. The book on 

 the whole is well written and contains much 

 interesting information. If in the following 

 we mention a few of the errors which we find 

 here and there, and take issue with some of 

 the views expressed and with the author's 

 treatment of certain aspects of scientific in- 

 vestigation, our purpose is not to detract from 

 the value of the book as a whole. 



In Section I. a survey of the various insti- 

 tutions and associations for the study of can- 

 cer is given. The American Association for 

 Cancer Research did not come into existence 

 in 1912 (p. 28), but was founded a number of 

 years previously. On page Y the "famous 

 Althoff " who promised the aid of the govern- 

 ment to the German Society for Cancer Re- 

 search, is erroneously designated as " Kultus 

 minister." The German society as such was 

 not committed to the parasitic theory of the 

 origin of cancer, for although some members 

 supported this hypothesis, other important 

 members, notably Orth and Von Hansemann, 

 opposed it. 



In Section II. we find a discussion of the 



botanical distribution of cancer. The analogy 

 between crown gall and animal cancer is not 

 accepted " since it presupposes the parasitic 

 origin of cancer," and since " notably the 

 presence of the parasites in Smith's secondary 

 growths is in contradiction to the way in 

 which secondary growths arise in man." In 

 reality we can not be certain that even in man 

 in certain tumors included among cancers, 

 parasites are not within the tumor cells which 

 give rise to the metastases. In the chapter 

 on the zoological distribution, it is stated that 

 the evidence is conclusive that benign as well 

 as malignant tumors may occur in any mul- 

 ticellular organism. Whether typical cancer 

 occurs at all in invertebrates is doubtful; cer- 

 tainly in the large majority of classes of in- 

 vertebrates no cancer has been found. Car- 

 cinoma of the caruncula seems to be the most 

 common site of cancer in cattle in various 

 parts of America, not only in Wyoming, as 

 might be inferred from the author's state- 

 ment. 



As to the ethnological distribution and can- 

 cer statistics the probabilities are very great 

 indeed that the cancer rate among the African 

 negro, the natives of Guinea and the American 

 Indian is considerably lower than among the 

 whites in Europe and America. The especially 

 interesting data of Levin concerning cancer 

 among the American Indian are not men- 

 tioned by the author. The value of possible 

 objections to the conclusion that the cancer 

 incidence is very difierent in different races 

 seems to be overestimated. The author ac- 

 cepts as correct Murray's work on heredity of 

 cancer in mice, which leads to the conclusion 

 that heredity is responsible for a difference 

 of only 10 to 15 per cent, in the cancer in- 

 cidence in mice; in common with Bashford 

 he attributes therefore only slight importance 

 to the factor of heredity. As a matter of fact 

 Murray's work is based on false premises and 

 it proves neither the presence nor the absence 

 of hereditary factors. Bainbridge makes no 

 mention of more recent investigations carried 

 on in Granby, Mass., and in Chicago, which 

 indeed prove the great significance of heredity 

 in cancer of mice, accounting for as great a 



