Is creeping abandon of human cancer defences evolutionarily favoured?

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-14

This paper investigates whether the evolution of weaker human cancer defenses, which appear after reproductive age, could be favored by natural selection due to potential benefits like calorie saving or continued contribution to tribal well-being.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-14 · read from full text

The paper investigates whether “creeping abandonment” of human cancer defenses could be favored by evolution, framing the question in an evolutionary biology context rather than focusing on a specific experimental cohort or clinical dataset. It discusses mechanisms and implications using conceptual evolutionary arguments about trade-offs between anti-cancer defenses and other fitness costs. A key limitation is that the provided text does not include study-specific methods, results, or explicit limitations, so the empirical basis cannot be evaluated from the excerpt alone. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Among the animal species on which observations are available, humans have a uniquely high lifetime risk to suffer from cancer - over 38%, compared to less than 10% for all observed other species (except species suffering from environmental pollution). Peto's paradox shows that this cannot simply be explained by mathematical models which view cancer genesis as a stochastic process, with resulting risks polynomial in lifespan and body mass - whales have a longer lifespan and about 30 times the human body mass, however their cancer risk remains constant throughout their life rather than increasing sharply after female reproductive age as observed in humans. Rather, it is well documented in the literature that species-specific tumour suppression mechanisms allow for large lifespan and body mass. Chimpanzees, being closely related to humans, have a very low cancer risk, and hence the weakness of human cancer defence is likely to have resulted from the specific development of homo sapiens. As this weakness appears past the reproductive years, a prominent hypothesis blames it to antagonistic pleiotropy. However, homo sapiens having lived in small tribes during most of its development, natural selection is likely to also have acted at the level of tribes, and higher degrees of inbreeding would quite certainly have been detrimental to a tribe. And males of high social status can attract new reproductive partners again and again until an age that has seen several generations grow, which in case of a not-so-large tribe would have considerably narrowed down its genetic pool. Furthermore, lowering tumour suppression activities might save calories and hence benefit tribes with limited food production; and individuals suffering from cancer after female reproductive age could still have made contributions to parental/grandparental care, while no more being attractive as a reproductive partner. So, we arrive at the mentioned hypothesis: Is creeping abandon of human cancer defences evolutionarily favoured? 
Full text 621 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version {{ publication.field_name }} {{ publication.subfield_name }} Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information. Listen on

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-19T01:45:01.086888+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-28T02:00:01.590549+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0