tuning the network elements, “a system that obeys simple, benign local rules can organize itself into a poised state…” (Bak, How
Nature Works 1999, page 33). Although the precise mechanism of the self-organization is unknown, it is based on local interactions
between many components in an open system (Krink and Thomsen 2001). At this critical state, minor disturbances cause events
whose impact and frequency follow a power law distribution, with a high frequency of minor impact events and a small tail of major
impact events. Rarely, an apparently trivial event triggers a large scale systemic response, leading to a major reconfiguration of the
system (Bak, How Nature Works 1999).
Self-organized criticality is illustrated by dropping one grain of sand at a time on the center of a table to create a sand pile. Initially,
the grains stay where they land. As the slope increases, a single grain is likely to cause other grains to topple. At this point, the
system has been transformed from one in which individual grains cause predictable patterns to one where the dynamics are global,
a self-organized critical state. Although a single grain of sand may cause an avalanche affecting the entire pile, we are incapable of
predicting its impact, because it is contingent on extensive knowledge of minor details of the sand pile’s configuration (Bak, How
Nature Works 1999, page 59). The emergence could not have been anticipated based on properties of the individual grains (Bak,
How Nature Works 1999, page 51). This system cannot be understood by focusing on isolated parts, because the dynamics
observed are due to the entire system as a whole. The sandpile itself is the functional unit, not the individual grains, so reductionism
is illogical in this context. The configuration of the sandpile does not change gradually but by means of large avalanches (Bak, How
Nature Works 1999, page 61). Thus, self-organized criticality may be nature’s mechanism of making large transformations over
short time scales, an approach which is useful in understanding how cancer arises.
Hierarchies
Living systems arise based on hierarchies, in which combination of agents (genes, proteins, processes) at one level become agents
themselves at the next level. Hierarchies include the transcription and translation of DNA to produce proteins, proteins interacting to
form organelles, clustering of organelles to create cells, cells combining to form tissues, tissues forming organs, organs forming
systems, systems working together to form individuals, and individuals interacting to form communities (Holland, Complexity: A
Very Short Introduction 2014, page 32). In a similar way, a biologic network can be considered to have a specific purpose, such as
phosphorylating a protein moiety. Multiple networks working together contribute to a more general biologic purpose, such as
metabolizing a substance. Networks with these purposes then cooperate to create important cell functions, such as mitosis,
apoptosis and morphogenesis, which can then work together, at a higher level, to form cells or create an organism.
Hierarchies explain how malignant change occurs through bursts of activity, not through gradualism. Tumors characterized by
multistep progression (Vogelstein 1993) appear to arise through the formation of increasingly unstable hierarchies (hyperplasia,
dysplasia) that may lead to malignancy. However, the process is not necessarily linear, and the formation of the hierarchies
themselves may be discontinuous. For example, it appears that breast cancer does not typically progress continuously from
hyperplasia to low grade DCIS to high grade DCIS to invasive carcinoma; instead, multiple parallel, genetically distinct pathways
may be present (Tang 2006). Similarly, malignancy in the prostate does not progress continuously from low grade to high grade
prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia to adenocarcinoma (Bostwick 2004, Braun 2011).
The origin of cancer begins with isolated network alterations, which may be mutations or simply changes in a network’s “rhythm” (i.e.
how it associates with other networks). These changes are often in response to chronic stressors which find or create “weak spots”
in a network to cause it to deviate from its usual physiologic state. These local network changes may interact to create, within the
context of other chronic stressors, a hierarchy of new biologic properties, which may be identifiable by altered patterns of molecular
expression. Kauffman describes how cells maintain a stable phenotype, called an attractor, through large numbers of mutually
regulating genes (Kauffman, The Origins of Order 1993, page 467). Similarly, hierarchies may have their own version of stability
due to “cancer attractors” (Huang 2009), and be identifiable as an intermediate state. Intermediate states may interact with each
other and with chronic stressors to create new hierarchies of more chaotic networks with new patterns of molecular expression, and
eventually lead to malignancy. The intermediate state is defined by patterns of molecular or network expression but there need not
be an associated histologic change. This explains why some malignancies, such as well differentiated pancreatic adenocarcinoma,
have molecular properties distinct from benign conditions, such as chronic pancreatitis, even though they are similar morphologically
(Hruban 2007, Logsdon 2003).
The edge of chaos
Disorder can also be understood based on the concept of human biologic networks being at the edge of chaos, a self-organized
critical state between order and chaos, which represents a state of biologic tension, analogous to a transition state in physics,
although the details differ. Positioning networks in this manner: (a) provides flexibility to coordinate complex activities such as
transcription, translation, mitosis and apoptosis, (b) helps coordinate global functions such as fertilization, embryogenesis and
response to environmental and physiologic threats (Kauffman, At Home in the Universe, page 86) and (c) maximizes an
organism’s evolutionary advantages, because rigid order would doom species that could not adapt to a changing and competitive
environment (Kauffman and Johnsen 1991, Langton 1990).
Part of the tradeoff for maintaining a self-organized critical state is that catastrophic systemic failure is predictable. This failure has
been described for man made and natural systems (Clearfield 2013, Rietkerk 2004, Scheffer 2001), as well as for human
physiology and cancer (Hogenboom, BBC Earth 2016, Simpson 1998, Maley 2017). Thus, we believe that cancer is an inevitable
feature of human biologic design, and will always be with us. We can prevent many cases of cancer by targeting chronic stressors
and risk factors, we can diagnose it earlier and we can treat it more effectively but the mission of the American Cancer Society for a
“world without cancer” will never be achieved.
Chronic cellular stress is the underlying cause of most cancers
This paper proclaims that chronic cellular stress is the underlying cause of most cancers. It disturbs the delicate balance
that exists in biologic networks involving susceptible stem or progenitor cells and pushes them into dysregulated and
unstable network trajectories associated with increased and relatively uncontrolled cell division. These new network states
are based not only on gene changes but altered cellular processes, which may be difficult to reverse: