Chris Marshall obituary

Chris Marshall, a pioneering cancer researcher, who has died aged 66 from the condition he invested his daily life learning, created important discoveries which shaped our understanding of how cancers come up and which have aided in the growth of superior therapies to treat them.

Amid his most significant achievements was the identification of a human oncogene – a typical gene current in each cell that mutates and triggers cancer. This work started in 1980, when Chris established his very own analysis crew at the Institute of Cancer Investigation (ICR) in London. At that time the ICR had a distinguished record in comprehending carcinogens and establishing chemotherapeutic drugs, but lacked study into the swiftly establishing regions of cell and molecular biology. Chris, with a colleague, Alan Hall, filled this gap. He was creating on an astonishing discovery, produced a handful of many years earlier by scientists in the US, that the DNA taken out of a human cancer cell could be transferred to a mouse cell and that the mouse cell could then be turned into a cancer cell.

This US work had led to the discovery of the initial human oncogene, and Chris was determined to discover much more. This was no easy task at a time when cancer analysis laboratories have been modest cottage industries, not like nowadays when research is carried out on an industrial scale, with global teams paying millions on deciphering the genetic codes of billions of cancer cells.

With characteristic determination, Chris and Alan at some point located a new oncogene in a couple of human cancer samples. They called it NRAS – it was a member of the family members of RAS genes that we now know underlies the growth of a quarter or far more of all cancers. Out of the blue the discipline exploded as other scientists realised the significance of these new benefits and joined the fray. Chris described it as a period of “rock’n’roll science” and he was one of its superstars.

He knew, nonetheless, that identifying the oncogenes was only the begin, and his distinctive contribution lay in the subsequent decades of painstaking work to reveal how RAS instructs cells to divide and move, and how the cancer-linked mutations lead to an inability to control these actions. He saw plainly that comprehending how RAS functions would be important to developing new therapies, and he was passionate about translating his standard study into clinical application.

To his wonderful fulfillment, he was capable to see his operate give rise to new drugs that are now element of the program therapy of cancer individuals. Many men and women were concerned in this journey from gene to cancer treatment, but its good results is a testimony to Chris’s tenacity, dedication and genius.

He was born in Birmingham to Lillian (nee Thornton), and James, a performs manager for Massey Ferguson, and grew up in Coventry, exactly where he studied at King Henry VIII school. Following gaining a degree at Churchill University, Cambridge, and a DPhil at Lincoln College, Oxford, he trained at the Imperial Cancer Investigation Fund in London and the Sidney Farber (now Dana-Farber) Cancer Institute in Boston, US, prior to returning to the United kingdom to perform at the ICR.

Part of what set Chris over most other study scientists was his capability to inspire and inspire the folks he worked with, evidence of which is the success of a lot of alumni of his laboratory who have gone on to lead cancer research groups and institutes of their very own. He held other individuals to high specifications, by expecting tough function and dedication, and by challenging them to maintain up with his formidable intellect. Despite the fact that he liked to foster an air of sternness – describing himself as “irascible” – this barely fooled anyone. In truth he was deeply caring and nurturing, worrying endlessly about the lives and progress of his colleagues. This quality became increasingly evident as, in excess of time, Chris took on several leadership roles, serving as director of study and head of the division of cancer biology at the ICR and also assisting Cancer Study United kingdom to create approach and distribute investigation funding. He engendered great loyalty and a powerful want amongst colleagues to achieve his approval.

Chris was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, the European Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Health care Sciences and the European Molecular Biology Organisation, and he acquired a lot of awards, such as the Novartis Medal of the Biochemical Society and the Cancer Research United kingdom lifetime achievement award.

Chris loved cycling and was a member of the Norwood Paragon cycling club in London. Though this presented some respite from science, he pursued his pastime with the identical passion and intensity that he showed in the laboratory, riding in several races and consistently competing against himself.

He is survived by his second wife, Lesley Ford, whom he married in 2005 by his three children, Joe, Lucy and Francis from his 1st marriage, in 1973, to Vivien Morrall, which ended in divorce in 1997 and by four grandchildren.

• Christopher John Marshall, cancer researcher, born 19 January 1949 died 8 August 2015

Chris Marshall obituary

Skeptics will always face an uphill struggle against pseudoscience | Michael Marshall

If the scientific skepticism motion have been to decide on a mascot, we could do a good deal worse than Sisyphus: the figure from Greek mythology doomed by the gods to devote eternity pushing a boulder uphill, only to watch it roll back down yet again the moment he rests. Few other analogies actually capture the frustrations and seeming futility of counteracting a extensively held pseudoscientific belief.

Possibly worse, it is not ample for us simply to push back against the outrageous claims of pseudoscience, and those who capitalise on the bereaved and the vulnerable (whether knowingly or unknowingly) – we also have to do so responsibly. We can’t afford to use the dirty tricks employed by some of these we criticise, lest we lose our very own integrity and with it no matter what persuasive energy we might have had.

Equally, we can’t afford to advocate rationalism with the identical brashness and rudeness displayed by some pseudoscientists, because our truths are sadly significantly less welcome than their comforting untruths. It is effortless to persuade an individual of a falsehood if it is anything they desperately want to hear. They will even spend you for the privilege, and defend you to the hilt.

This is the Greek tragedy of the contemporary skeptical motion. If we’re cursed to play the function of Sisyphus and forever push our boulder up the mountain, we’re also fated to do so with a single hand tied behind our back. Rest assured, these advocating explanation will forever encounter an uphill battle, and any victories will be slow and challenging – and the minute we stop pushing, the boulder will inexorably roll back.

So why do we bother? If each and every victory only holds back the tide for a whilst, what’s the level? It is a question I’ve been taking into consideration a great deal of late, and I feel the answer lies in social duty, humility and an awareness of our own susceptibility. It is as well simple to see ourselves as getting beyond belief, or above belief: “There but for the grace of a god I don’t believe in go not I, for I am smarter than that, and I are not able to be fooled.”

Personally, I don’t buy that mentality for a second. Intelligence is no guard against pseudoscience – wise individuals basically find smarter methods to justify their belief in the unjustifiable. Rather, the genuine defence towards succumbing to seductive nonsense is an awareness of our own intellectual limitations and the cognitive flaws to which we are all prey. Or, in short, skepticism.

Skepticism is an anti-virus system for the brain: it merely supplies the resources to examine suggestions, combined with the knowledge that can get the weight out of undesirable concepts. Realizing that psychics have distinct techniques of asking concerns that make it sound as though they’re supplying data implies you are alive to the trick when you hear it. Awareness of regression to the suggest and confirmation bias may possibly quit you attributing your recovery to the copper band on your wrist or the sugar pill on your tongue. Knowing that President Kennedy’s seat in his car was raised to make him far more visible to the crowd will take the mystique out of the trajectory of that magic bullet.

But the anti-virus application analogy isn’t ideal, since after you have been infected with a “logic virus” it is hard to uncover and delete it, due to the fact it covers its tracks so well. Folks who fall for the seductive claims of psychics do so not simply because they’re wilfully flouting reality, but because there’s a phenomenal emotional sway that goes with the mystical. We have all misplaced a person near to us, and we have all felt the pain of bereavement. As skeptics, we have no magical solution to that soreness.

At their lowest ebb, at their most vulnerable, that is when folks are most at threat of taking a logical misstep that, when made, is extremely hard to reverse. And that applies not just to the “illogical handful of”, but to every a single of us, due to the fact we are all prone to moments of weakness. It is portion of the human problem, and it will take an act of near-perverse will to break that pattern, since it’s so deeply ingrained in our cultural and evolutionary psyche.

But that’s why it’s so crucial that we as skeptics and rationalists phase up: when someone is in a negative area, it’s the obligation of everybody who is aware of them – and even folks who really do not know them – to view their back. Because when I’m in that place myself, when I’m at my lowest ebb and feel as although actuality offers no hope, I want there to be men and women who end me walking – blinded by vulnerability – into an open manhole.

Michael Marshall is the project director for the Good Considering Society and vice president of the Merseyside Skeptics Society. He tweets as @MrMMarsh.

Skeptics will always face an uphill struggle against pseudoscience | Michael Marshall

Chiropractors" spine-chilling warnings about computer systems, phones and pancakes | Michael Marshall

Scaremongering more than new technological innovation has been all around as long as technology itself, but it sank to a new low last month when The Telegraph published the following:

Computers blamed for children’s undesirable backs

Computers and mobile telephones are triggering an improve in back problems for teenagers, with 40 per cent of youngsters struggling soreness, a examine has claimed.

Researchers warned parents that their teenagers are at escalating threat from back or neck pain due to sedentary lifestyles and excessive use of technology.

The coverage was based mostly on a press release from the British Chiropractic Association as element of its “Engineering and Teenagers” awareness campaign. The BCA’s press workplace informed me that the study was an opinion poll conducted by a industry research firm, but they declined my request to look at the inquiries that had been asked or the several decision solutions that had been offered.

However, it appears the researchers questioned mothers and fathers of 11 to 16-year-olds about their child’s technological innovation usage and whether their children had ever seasoned back pain, and then invited them to speculate about what might have brought on the discomfort. That the methodology concerned no actual examinations of the kids – either by spinal authorities or chiropractors – significantly undermines the findings.

It comes as no surprise that the full research is not offered to the public, allow alone published in a respectable journal. Yet this flimsy research is apparently adequate to base an complete awareness-raising campaign on, one particular which the media readily picked up.

This technique has worked not only for the BCA, but also for other chiropractic organisations. In March, the United Chiropractic Association went one further than the BCA, releasing a press release that inspired the Daily Mail to declare the humble smartphone to be a prospective killer:

Could sending texts Kill you? Messaging may possibly lead to heart condition and breathing troubles in later existence, examine claims.

Texting and employing mobile products for long intervals of time could lead to a decrease life expectancy, in accordance to a new study.

Chiropractic experts feel the hunching posture adopted by phone or tablet end users can result in breathing difficulties, top to cardiovascular problems later on in daily life and a increased threat of death in older age.

The hyperlink amongst hyperkyphosis, a deformation of the spine usually connected with degenerative circumstances this kind of as osteoporosis, and the posture adopted even though studying emails looks to be the invention of the UCA – it undoubtedly is not supported by any reliable evidence. Quite how our smartphone-reading through posture differs from the bog-common book-studying posture we’ve adopted for centuries is anyone’s guess.

That the Mail reported the UCA’s press release with no a trace of criticism – or, indeed, proof – is undoubtedly poor journalism, and it comes as no shock that its story was rapidly derided by experts.

The campaign comes soon after many years of criticism for chiropractors: in 2010, the BCA lost an costly legal case following suing science writer Simon Singh (who is now my colleague at the Excellent Pondering Society). The BCA was unhappy with his criticisms of claims produced by the association and its members that spinal manipulation – which according to chiropractic concept can unblock “subluxations” in the innate power of the spine – could deal with colic in infants. (There is no dependable proof that spinal manipulation can deal with infant colic.)

Despite this substantial-profile defeat in the courts, a lot of chiropractors – such as some members of the BCA – still routinely distribute leaflets at their practices containing claims that chiropractic remedy can manipulate the spines of newborn infants to deal with colic, breathing problems, ear infections, poor appetite and even allergies. That BCA members even now appear to, in the phrases of Singh, “happily advertise bogus treatments” for which there is “not a jot of evidence” is alarming to say the least. Chiropractors may possibly nicely feel that they are assisting their individuals, but the ideal offered proof does not support their bizarre theories.

The apparent inaction of the chiropractic regulatory bodies is troubling. In the wake of publicity induced by the libel action towards Singh, the sector came below intense scrutiny, with complaints of misleading or unsubstantiated claims levelled against one in 3 registrants of the Common Chiropractic Council. Four years on, it looks minor has been done to discourage chiropractors from making unsubstantiated claims – the GCC seems to be as ineffective as the treatment options provided by its members.

Even though the regulatory side of the chiropractic business has been slow to act, the exact same can not be explained of its advertising and PR departments. Apart from scaremongering more than our deadly smartphone usage, we’ve also been subjected to press releases warning of the dangers of sleeping on poor mattresses, more than-stuffing our ‘man-bags’, and even flipping pancakes.

If chiropractors want to be taken significantly, perhaps they ought to emphasis on bettering the regulation of their market and conducting rigorous study rather than relying on PR stunts to drum up company. But I suspect they will carry on to bend in excess of backwards to exploit every PR opportunity.

In the meantime, the newspapers who merrily regurgitate these flimsy stories should be careful: if they stoop any lower, they’ll put their backs out.

Chiropractors" spine-chilling warnings about computer systems, phones and pancakes | Michael Marshall

Homeopathy awareness can make the planet a healthier, happier place | Michael Marshall

Planet Homeopathy Awareness Week – the yearly promotional campaign organised by homeopaths about the world – kicked off on Thursday. This yr, rather than disregard it, moan about it or condemn it, scientists and sceptics alike should join in.

This may appear relatively perverse – particularly given the comprehensive evisceration of homeopathy earlier this week at the hands of the Australian National Overall health and Medical Analysis Council, which concluded “there is no trustworthy proof that homeopathy is effective”. Yet what homeopaths are in search of – consideration and awareness – is precisely what they ought to steer clear of. As any person who has explained the baffling approach of homeopathic dilution to an incredulous colleague will attest, raising awareness of homeopathy is by far the quickest way to dispel any belief in it.

With this in thoughts, the Great Contemplating Society (a charity that promotes rational considering) has launched its personal homeopathy awareness week website: homeopathyawarenessweek.org. The internet site highlights twelve points that homeopaths appear surprisingly unwilling to make individuals conscious of, like examples of exactly where homeopathy has critically harmed sufferers.

Apologists for homeopathy will argue that due to the fact the tablets include nothing at all but sugar, they can’t be harmful. Although their chemistry may be exact, their conclusion definitely is not. For example, there is the situation of Penelope Dingle, a bowel cancer patient in Australia who followed the tips of her homeopath husband, and as a consequence suffered a agonizing and unnecessary death.

Equally tragic is the story of Gloria Thomas, a child whose homeopathically handled eczema became so badly contaminated that it led to her death at the age of 9 months. The public ought to also be aware that homeopaths often provide ineffective homeopathic “alternatives” to vaccines that put children at threat of serious disease. You won’t discover these stories on any other homeopathy awareness websites.

It is alarming to note that homeopaths all around the globe are appropriate now claiming to treat a assortment of significant circumstances, this kind of as malaria, AIDS and even the Ebola virus. Indeed, Homeopaths Without Borders – a group of doubtlessly nicely-that means folk – are flying into areas of crisis in the building world carrying suitcases total of homeopathic tablets that contain nothing but sugar. It is not so much Médecins Sans Frontières as Médecins Sans Medicine.

Of course, belief in homeopathy is not merely a curio identified solely on foreign soil – it is effectively represented, for illustration, on the shelves of high street pharmacies in the United kingdom. Boots – the company whose otherwise exceptional reputation made it the target of demonstrations towards homeopathy in 2010 – nonetheless unapologetically stocks homeopathic goods on its shelves in thousands of retailers up and down the nation.

Luckily, there are constructive signs. In 2010, when I first became involved in alternative wellness activism, the NHS funded no fewer than five homeopathic hospitals nowadays all have both closed or faced a severe risk to their existence. Latest figures, obtained via a freedom of information request by the Nightingale Collaboration, demonstrate an encouraging swing away from homeopathy, with prescriptions falling from a substantial of 170,000 per annum in 1996 to just over 10,000 final 12 months.

Clearly, demand is falling. Provide, too, is on shaky ground. When Nelson’s homeopathic pharmacy – sugar pill supplier of option for Boots and Holland &amp Barrett – explored the likelihood of exporting to the US, the resulting FDA inspection reached a startling conclusion. In accordance to the report, the succussion method (the vigorous shaking that apparently activates the “vibrational memory” of water) meant that in a single out of every 6 homeopathic vials observed, the magical drop of homeopathic liquid missed the sugar tablets fully.

“The lively ingredient was rather seen dripping down the outdoors of the vial assembly. [Nelson’s] lacked controls to guarantee that the energetic ingredient is delivered to every bottle.”

In other phrases, 1 in six vials of homeopathic capsules from the greatest supplier of substantial street homeopathy incorporate no homeopathy at all. That no customers seem to be to have observed speaks volumes for the efficacy of homeopathy.

Maybe most surprising and encouraging of all is just how mainstream this discussion has turn into. Homeopathy is now the butt of mainstream comedians’ jokes and Television sketch displays, and homeopaths have grow to be a watchword for anachronistic thinking, overtaking the Flat Earthers. And, judging by the responses on Twitter to our homeopathy awareness web site, these days practically everybody has their very own “homeopathy is ineffective” gag.

So, I say: deliver on higher awareness … but awareness in its truest sense. Awareness that homeopathy has no scientific basis, is a waste of your income and has the prospective for great harm. If we can continue to spread this type of awareness, we’ll consign homeopathy to the historical past books where it belongs.

Michael Marshall is the undertaking director for the Good Considering Society. As vice president of the Merseyside Skeptics Society, he is also one of the organisers of QEDcon, which starts tomorrow. He tweets as @MrMMarsh

Homeopathy awareness can make the planet a healthier, happier place | Michael Marshall