You're previewing the Bennett demo family. Numbers, schedule, and kids are sample data.Start your own
Loading page…
Cancer starts when one cell goes wrong. A blue whale has more than a thousand times as many cells as you do and lives for a century. By every sensible calculation, whales should not be possible. They are fine. Nobody is completely sure why.
Start with something not in dispute. Cancer begins in a single cell — one cell picks up a set of faults in the instructions that tell it when to stop dividing, and it stops stopping.
So think of it like this. Every cell in a body is holding a ticket in a draw nobody wants to win. The chance for any one cell is tiny. But the more tickets you hold, and the longer you hold them, the more likely it is that one of them comes up.
You have roughly 37 trillion cells. That is already an enormous number of tickets.
An elephant weighs about four tonnes. That is somewhere around fifty times your weight, made of cells about the same size as yours — so it holds around fifty times as many tickets, for about as many years.
A blue whale weighs about a hundred tonnes. More than a thousand times you.
You can see where this is heading. Let's actually do it.
Pretend each cell has a one-in-a-trillion chance of going rogue in a lifetime. That number is invented — nobody knows the real one and it does not matter here, because what we are after is the RATIO between the rows, and every row uses the same invented figure. Press for each animal.
The table used a made-up per-cell risk of one in a trillion. Does that make its conclusion worthless?
So we have a solid prediction. Big animals should be swamped with cancer, and enormous ones should barely be able to exist.
Go and check it against actual animals, and the whole thing falls over.
In a study of zoo records, fewer than five in every hundred elephants died of cancer. For people the figure usually quoted sits somewhere around eleven to twenty-five in a hundred, depending on the country and the era. The elephant — fifty times the cells — does better than we do, not fifty times worse.
Whales, as far as anyone can tell, are not riddled with it either. Bowhead whales live past two hundred years, which by the ticket argument should be catastrophic, and they carry on.
And it is not simply that big animals are good at this. Compare across many species and body size barely predicts cancer rates at all. A mouse, which holds a tiny handful of tickets by comparison, has a very high lifetime cancer rate.
This has a name. Peto's paradox, after the epidemiologist Richard Peto, who pointed out in 1977 that the obvious prediction and the observed world flatly disagree.
When a sound argument makes a firm prediction and the world says otherwise, the argument is not silly — one of its hidden assumptions is false. The work is finding out which one.
Go back through the reasoning and find the thing we slipped in without noticing.
We assumed that a cell's chance of going rogue is a fixed property of being a cell — the same in every animal, like a physical constant.
There is no reason that should be true.
An elephant's cells are not obliged to be as careless as a mouse's. If having a huge body puts you in danger, then any lineage that stumbles into better protection will survive to have descendants, and the ones without it will not. Big, long-lived animals are exactly the animals under the heaviest pressure to evolve better defences — so of course they have them.
The paradox is not really a paradox. It is a clue, and the clue says: there are cancer defences out there in other animals that we do not have. Which is a considerably more interesting thing to be told than a fact about elephants.
Once you go looking, you find real, specific, measurable things.
Elephants have extra copies of a gene we have one of. It is called TP53, and its job is roughly quality control: when a cell's instructions are damaged, the protein it makes decides whether to pause the cell for repairs or shut it down permanently. You inherit one copy from each parent. An elephant has at least twenty copies. In the laboratory, elephant cells that take damage are markedly quicker to shut themselves down than human cells given the same treatment — they are less willing to risk a repair.
Naked mole-rats do something completely different. These are the wrinkled, more or less hairless rodents that live underground in colonies. They live for decades — extraordinary for a rodent — and tumours are so rare among them that for years none had been recorded at all. Their cells produce an unusually large, sticky version of a substance called hyaluronan, and cells packed in it stop dividing when crowded far sooner than ordinary cells do.
Two entirely different solutions, in two entirely different animals. Which is what you would expect if this were a problem being solved repeatedly by evolution rather than a single trick with a single answer.
This subject attracts explanations that sound satisfying and are not supported. Sort each statement by whether it is something that has actually been measured. Read every reason — the second column is the more useful one.
Tap an item, then tap where it belongs
Suppose someone measures a hundred species and finds that the ones with more TP53 copies get less cancer. What would that establish?
You’re previewing as a parent — nothing here is recorded.
Peto's paradox: Richard Peto and colleagues (1975/1977) observed that cancer incidence across species does not increase with body size or lifespan, contrary to the prediction from cell number and cell divisions. It remains an active area of research. Elephant cancer mortality and TP53: Abegglen, Caulin, Schiffman et al., 'Potential Mechanisms for Cancer Resistance in Elephants and Comparative Cellular Response to DNA Damage in Humans', JAMA 314(17):1850-1860 (2015). Estimated cancer mortality in elephants from zoo necropsy records was under 5 per cent (reported as 4.81 per cent), against 11 to 25 per cent commonly cited for humans. African elephants carry at least 20 copies of TP53 (40 alleles) against one copy (2 alleles) in humans, and elephant cells showed elevated apoptosis in response to DNA damage relative to human cells. LIMITATION STATED IN THE EPISODE: the elephant figure comes from zoo necropsy records, a specific and non-random population. Naked mole-rat: Tian, Azpurua, Gorbunova, Seluanov et al., 'High-molecular-mass hyaluronan mediates the cancer resistance of the naked mole rat', Nature 499:346-349 (2013) — removing the high-molecular-mass hyaluronan, or the enzyme that makes it, removed much of the cells' resistance. Naked mole-rats are extraordinarily long-lived for a rodent, with individuals recorded beyond 30 years. NOT immune: tumours have been reported in captive naked mole-rats — Delaney et al., Veterinary Pathology 53(3) (2016), documenting the first confirmed neoplasms in the species. The episode states this explicitly because the title says 'never'. Human cell count: Bianconi et al., 'An estimation of the number of cells in the human body', Annals of Human Biology 40(6):463-471 (2013), estimating about 3.72 x 10^13 cells — the source of the 'about 37 trillion' figure. Body masses used for the cell-count comparison are typical adult values: human about 70 kg, African elephant about 4,000 kg (roughly 57 times, stated in the episode as 'about fifty'), blue whale about 100,000 kg (roughly 1,400 times, stated as 'more than a thousand'). Cell number is taken as proportional to body mass. THIS IS AN APPROXIMATION and is declared as such below. SIMPLIFICATION DECLARED — the worked table: the one-in-a-trillion per-cell risk is INVENTED and the episode says so twice, in the intro and the takeaway. The expected-rogue-cell figures (37, about 1,800, about 52,000) are that invented risk multiplied through the mass ratios above; they are not measurements of anything and are used only to show that the prediction scales with size. Real carcinogenesis needs several separate mutations in one cell lineage, not one event, which is itself one of the reasons the naive multiplication overstates the problem. SIMPLIFICATION DECLARED — 'cell number is proportional to body mass' ignores that different tissues have very different cell densities, and that a whale's cells are not uniformly the same size as a human's. The comparison is an order-of-magnitude argument and nothing finer. Bowhead whale longevity: age estimates from aspartic acid racemisation in the eye lens indicate individuals living beyond 200 years (George et al., Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:571-580, 1999), supported by recovered nineteenth-century stone and ivory harpoon points found in living whales. Metabolic rate per gram falls with increasing body mass in mammals (Kleiber's law). It is one of several proposed contributors to Peto's paradox and is described in the episode as unproven as a complete explanation, which is the current state of the question. NO MEDICAL CONTENT: this episode is comparative animal biology. It describes no symptoms, gives no advice, makes no claim about any human's risk, and does not discuss treatment.