- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Response to “In defense of the somatic mutation theory of cancer”
Bioessays 33 (9):657-659 (2011)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)Author's Profile
Other Versions
No versions found
My notes
Similar books and articles
The tissue organization field theory of cancer: A testable replacement for the somatic mutation theory.Ana M. Soto & Carlos Sonnenschein - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (5):332-340.
The somatic mutation theory of cancer: growing problems with the paradigm?Ana M. Soto & Carlos Sonnenschein - 2004 - Bioessays 26 (10):1097-1107.
Response to “The tissue organization field theory of cancer: A testable replacement for the somatic mutation theory”. [REVIEW]David L. Vaux - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (9):660-661.
Problems of somatic mutation and cancer.Steven A. Frank & Martin A. Nowak - 2004 - Bioessays 26 (3):291-299.
In defense of the somatic mutation theory of cancer.David L. Vaux - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (5):341-343.
Counterpoints in cancer: The somatic mutation theory under attack.David Thomas & Andrew Moore - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (5):313-314.
On reductionism, organicism, somatic mutations and cancer.James A. Coffman - 2005 - Bioessays 27 (4):459-459.
Evidence amalgamation, plausibility, and cancer research.Marta Bertolaso & Fabio Sterpetti - 2019 - Synthese 196 (8):3279-3317.
One hundred years of somatic mutation theory of carcinogenesis: Is it time to switch?Ana M. Soto & Carlos Sonnenschein - 2014 - Bioessays 36 (1):118-120.
Analytics
Added to PP
2013-10-28
Downloads
38 (#572,645)
6 months
4 (#1,227,078)
2013-10-28
Downloads
38 (#572,645)
6 months
4 (#1,227,078)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Evidence amalgamation, plausibility, and cancer research.Marta Bertolaso & Fabio Sterpetti - 2019 - Synthese 196 (8):3279-3317.
SMT or TOFT? How the Two Main Theories of Carcinogenesis are Made (Artificially) Incompatible.Baptiste Bedessem & Stéphanie Ruphy - 2015 - Acta Biotheoretica 63 (3):257-267.
References found in this work
The tissue organization field theory of cancer: A testable replacement for the somatic mutation theory.Ana M. Soto & Carlos Sonnenschein - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (5):332-340.
In defense of the somatic mutation theory of cancer.David L. Vaux - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (5):341-343.
What keeps cells in tissues behaving normally in the face of myriad mutations?Harry Rubin - 2006 - Bioessays 28 (5):515-524.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-667477cd97-2pm92 dc2