Science
When ‘Cancer’ Gets in the Way of Treatment
Calling DCIS “cancer” can signal to patients that they face a medical emergency requiring immediate surgery and, often, radiation. Yet studies suggest that such harsh treatments may be unnecessary and overused. Preliminary results from a trial of nearly 1,000 women with DCIS showed that, two years into the study, patients who were being actively monitored did not experience a higher rate of cancer than patients treated with surgery.
“A lot of these cancers didn’t show up yesterday, so it’s not an emergency,” said Dr. Laura J. Esserman, a surgeon and oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco’s Breast Care Center who diagnoses and treats DCIS. “It’s an emergency only because you know about it.”
To Dr. Esserman, the solution is simple. Call the condition something else: abnormal cells, low-grade lesions, stage 0 cancer, precancer, a risk factor for cancer. Renaming DCIS is an “ethical imperative,” she has argued, to spare patients undue anxiety and to shift the current treatment paradigm from invasive surgery to active monitoring (sometimes with hormone-blocking medications).
This problem goes beyond the breast. A handful of other conditions straddle this in-between space, including early-stage cancers of the lung, thyroid, esophagus, bladder, cervix, prostate and skin. Some, like early-stage prostate cancer, are still called cancer. Others have already had the word excised from their names: Abnormal cervical cells, for example, are now referred to as dysplasia.
In all of these cases, Dr. Esserman said, the word “cancer” does not reflect biological reality. Cancer “is a blight, something that will grow and take over and kill you,” she said. “If the condition is not that, then the name isn’t correct.”
Science
Video: Scientists Discover Colossal, Stinking Spider Web in Pitch-Black Cave
new video loaded: Scientists Discover Colossal, Stinking Spider Web in Pitch-Black Cave
By Jamie Leventhal and Axel Boada
November 7, 2025
Science
James Watson, Nobel Prize winner and DNA pioneer, dies
On a chilly February afternoon in 1953, a gangly American and a fast-talking Brit walked into the Eagle pub in Cambridge, England, and announced to the assembled imbibers that they had discovered the “secret of life.”
Even by the grandiose standards of bar talk, it was a provocative statement. Except, it was also pretty close to the truth. That morning, James Watson, the American whiz kid who had not yet turned 25, and his British colleague, Francis Crick, had finally worked out the structure of DNA.
Everything that followed, unlocking the human genome, learning to edit and move genetic information to cure disease and create new forms of life, the revolution in criminal justice with DNA fingerprinting, and many other things besides, grew out of the discovery of the double-helix shape of DNA.
It took Watson decades to feel worthy of a breakthrough some consider the equal of Einstein’s famous E=MC2 formula. But he got there. “Did Francis and I deserve the double helix?” Watson asked rhetorically, 40 years later. “Yeah, we did.”
James Dewey Watson, Nobel Prize winner and “semi-professional loose cannon” whose racist views made him a scientific pariah late in life, died Thursday in hospice care in New York after a brief illness, according to officials at his former laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He was 97.
Born April 6, 1928, in Chicago, he was the son of a bill collector for a mail-order school who had written a small book about birds in northern Illinois. The younger Watson originally hoped to follow his father’s passion and become an ornithologist. “My greatest ambition had been to find out why birds migrate,” he once said. “It would have been a lost career. They still don’t know.”
At 12, the brainy boy who read the World Almanac for pleasure appeared on the popular radio show “Quiz Kids.” As is often the case for the gifted, his teen years were trying. “I never even tried to be an adolescent,” Watson said. “I never went to teenage parties. I didn’t fit in. I didn’t want to fit in. I basically passed from being a child to an adult.”
He was admitted to the University of Chicago at 15, under a program designed to give bright youngsters a head start in life. It was there he learned the Socratic method of inquiry by oral combat that would underlie both his remarkable achievements and the harsh judgments that would precipitate his fall from grace.
Reading Erwin Schrodinger’s book, “What Is Life?” in his sophomore year set the aspiring ornithologist on a new course. Schrodinger suggested that a substance he called an “aperiodic crystal,” which might be a molecule, was the substance that passed on hereditary information. Watson was inspired by the idea that if such a molecule existed, he might be able to find it.
“Goodbye bird migration,” he said, “and on to the gene.”
Coincidentally, Oswald Avery had only the year before shown that a relatively simple compound — deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA — must play a role in transferring genetic information. He injected DNA from one type of bacterium into another, then watched as the two became the same.
Most scientists didn’t believe the results. DNA, which is coiled up in every cell in the body, was nothing special, just sugars, phosphates and bases. They couldn’t believe this simple compound could be responsible for the myriad characteristics that make up an animal, much less a human being.
Watson, meanwhile, had graduated and moved on to Indiana University, where he joined a cluster of scientists known as the “phage group,” whose research with viruses infecting bacteria helped launch the field of molecular biology. He often said he came “along at the right time” to solve the DNA problem, but there was more to it. “The major credit I think Jim and I deserve is for selecting the right problem and sticking to it,” Crick said many years later. “It’s true that by blundering about we stumbled on gold, but the fact remains that we were looking for gold.”
The search began inauspiciously enough, when Watson arrived at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University in late 1951, supposedly to study proteins. Crick was 12 years older, working on his PhD. When they met, the two found an instant camaraderie. “I’m sure Francis and I talked about guessing the structure of DNA within the first half-hour of our meeting,” Watson recalled.
Their working method was mostly just conversation, but conversation conducted at a breakneck pace, and at high volume. So high, they were exiled to an office in a shabby shack called the Hut, where their debates would not disturb others.
In January 1953, the brilliant American chemist Linus Pauling stole a march on them when he announced he had the answer: DNA was a triple helix, with the bases sticking out, like charms on a bracelet.
Watson and Crick were devastated, until they realized Pauling’s scheme would not work. After seeing an X-ray image of DNA taken by crystallographer Rosalind Franklin, they built a 6-foot-tall metal model of a double helix, shaped like a spiral staircase, with the rungs made of the bases adenine and thymine, guanine and cytosine. When they finished, it was immediately apparent how DNA copies itself, by unzipping down the middle, allowing each chain to find a new partner. In Watson’s words, the final product was “too pretty” not to be true.
American biology professor James Dewey Watson from Cambridge, Nobel laureate in medicine in 1962, explains the possibilities of future cancer treatments at a Nobel Laureate Meeting in Lindau on July 4, 1967. Watson had received the Nobel Prize together with the two British scientists Crick and Wilkins for their research on the molecular structure of nucleic acids (DNA).
(Gerhard Rauchwetter / picture alliance via Getty Images)
It was true, and in 1962, Watson, Crick and another researcher, Maurice Wilkins, were awarded the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine. Franklin, whose expert X-ray images solidified Watson’s conviction that DNA was a double helix, had died four years earlier of ovarian cancer. Had she lived, it’s unclear what would have happened, since Nobel rules allow only three people to share a single prize.
In the coming years, Watson’s attitude toward Franklin became a matter of controversy, which he did little to soothe by his unchivalrous treatment of her in his 1968 book, “The Double Helix.” “By choice, she did not emphasize her feminine qualities,” he wrote, adding that she was secretive and quarrelsome.
To his admirers, this was just “Honest Jim,” as some referred to him, being himself, a refreshing antidote to the increasingly politically correct world of science and society. But as the years passed, more controversies erupted around his “truth-telling” — he said he would not hire an overweight person because they were not ambitious, and that exposure to the sun in equatorial regions increases sexual urges — culminating with remarks in 2007 that he could not escape. He said he was “inherently gloomy” about Africa’s prospects because policies in the West were based on assumptions that the intelligence of Black people is the same as Europeans, when “all the testing says, not really.”
He apologized “unreservedly,” but was still forced to retire as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Long Island, N.Y., institution he had rescued from the brink of insolvency decades earlier. Afterward, he complained about being reduced to a “non-person,” but rekindled public outrage seven years later by insisting in a documentary that his views had not changed. This time, citing his “unsubstantiated and reckless personal opinions,” the laboratory rescinded the honorary titles it had bestowed, chancellor emeritus and honorary trustee.
Mark Mannucci, director of the documentary “American Masters: Decoding Watson,” compared him to King Lear, a man “at the height of his powers and, through his own character flaws, was brought down.” Those sympathetic to Watson said the problem was he didn’t know any of his Black colleagues. If he had, they argued, he would have immediately renounced his prejudices.
Following his DNA triumph, Watson spent two years at Caltech before joining the faculty at Harvard University. During this period, he worked to understand the role ribonucleic acid (RNA) plays in the synthesis of proteins that make bodily structures. If the double-stranded DNA contains the body’s master plan, the single-stranded RNA is the messenger, telling the cell’s protein factories how to build the three-dimensional shapes that make the whole. Watson’s 1965 textbook, “Molecular Biology of the Gene,” became a foundation stone of modern biology.
As great as was his obsession with DNA, Watson’s pursuit of, and failure to obtain, female companionship was a matter of only marginally less critical mass. At Harvard, he recruited Radcliffe coeds to work in his lab, reasoning that “if you have pretty girls in the lab, you don’t have to go out.” He started attending Radcliffe parties known as jolly-ups. “Here comes this 35-year-old and he wants to come to jolly-ups,” said a biographer, Victor McElheny. “He was constantly swinging and missing.”
His batting average improved when he met Elizabeth Vickery Lewis, a 19-year-old Radcliffe sophomore working in the Harvard lab. He married her in 1968, realizing by only days his goal of marrying before 40. On his honeymoon, he sent a postcard back to Harvard: “She’s 19; she’s beautiful; and she’s all mine.” The couple had two sons, Rufus, who developed schizophrenia in his teens, and Duncan.
The same year, Watson finished writing “The Double Helix.” When he showed it to Crick and Wilkins, both objected to the way he characterized them and persuaded Harvard not to publish it. Watson soon found another publisher.
It was certainly true his book could be unkind and gossipy, but that was why the public, which likely had trouble sorting out the details of crystallography and hydrogen bonds, loved it. “The Double Helix” became an international bestseller that remained in stock for many years. Eventually, Watson and Crick made up and by the time the Englishman died in 2004, they were again the boon pals they’d been 50 years earlier.
After their discovery of DNA’s structure, the two men took divergent paths. Crick hoped to find the biological roots of consciousness, while Watson devoted himself to discovering a cure for cancer.
After serving on a voluntary basis, Watson became director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island in 1976. It had once been a whaling village, and the humble buildings retained a rustic charm, though when Watson arrived the rustic quality was on a steep descent toward ruination. Its endowment was virtually nonexistent and money was so tight a former director mowed the lawn himself.
As skilled at raising money as he was at solving difficult scientific problems, Watson turned the institution into a major research center that helped reveal the role of genetics in cancer. By 2019, the endowment had grown to $670 million, and the research staff had tripled. From an annual budget of $1 million, it had grown to $190 million.
“You have to like people who have money,” Watson said in explanation of his success at resurrecting Cold Spring Harbor. “I really like rich people.” His growing eccentricity, which included untied shoelaces and hair that spiked out in all directions, completed the stock image of a distracted scientist. Acquaintances swore they saw him untie his shoelaces before meeting with a potential donor.
In 1988, he became the first director of the $3-billion Human Genome Project, whose goal was to identify and map every human gene. He resigned four years later, after a public falling-out with the director of the National Institutes of Health. “I completely failed the test,” he said of his experience as a bureaucrat.
Among his passions were tennis and charity work. In 2014, the year of the documentary that sealed his fate as an exile, Watson put his Nobel gold medal up for auction. He gave away virtually all the $4.1 million it fetched. The buyer, Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov, returned it a year later, saying he felt bad the scientist had to sell possessions to support worthy causes.
A complex, beguiling, maddening man who defied easy, or any, categorization, Watson followed his own star to the end of his life, insisting in 2016, when he was nearly 90, that he didn’t want to die until a cure for cancer was found. At the time, he was still playing tennis three times a week, with partners decades younger.
Besides the Nobel Prize, Watson was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Eli Lilly Award in Biochemistry and the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research. He was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and was made an honorary Knight of the British Empire. Among his literary works were both scientific and popular books, from “Recombinant DNA” to “Genes, Girls, and Gamow,” a typically cheeky book recounting his twin obsessions, scientific glory and the opposite sex.
Johnson is a former Times staff writer.
Science
10 Years After the Paris Climate Agreement, Here’s Where We Are
Almost exactly 10 years ago, a remarkable thing happened in a conference hall on the outskirts of Paris: After years of bitter negotiations, the leaders of nearly every country agreed to try to slow down global warming in an effort to head off its most devastating effects.
The core idea was that countries would set their own targets to reduce their climate pollution in ways that made sense for them. Rich, industrialized nations were expected to go fastest and to help lower-income countries pay for the changes they needed to cope with climate hazards.
So, has anything changed over those 10 years? Actually, yes. Quite a bit, for the better and the worse. For one thing, every country remains committed to the Paris Agreement, except one. That’s the United States.
We wanted to help you cut through the noise and show you 10 big things that have happened in the last 10 years.
1. Emissions have come down, but there’s still far to go.
Call this good-ish news. Lower emissions mean the arc of temperature increase has curved downward over the past 10 years. If countries stick to current policies, the global average temperature is projected to rise by 2.5 to 2.9 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. That’s a significant improvement from where we were 10 years ago: In 2015, scientific models said we were on track to increase the global average temperature by up to 3.8 degrees Celsius.
Global greenhouse gas emissions and expected warming
But none of the world’s biggest emitters — China, the U.S., the European Union, India — have met their Paris promises. And every degree of warming matters. A one-degree increase in average temperature, for instance, raises malaria risk for children in sub-Saharan Africa by 77 percent.
2. The last 10 years were the hottest on record.
We started burning coal, oil and gas on a large scale roughly 150 years ago. As a result, global temperatures have been rising ever since, and the last 10 years have been the hottest 10 on record.
Global temperatures compared with late-19th-century average
The most scorching was 2024. That year, extreme heat killed election workers in India and pilgrims on the hajj in Saudi Arabia. This year, it forced the temporary closure of the top of the Eiffel Tower at the peak of tourist season and shuttered schools in parts of the United States.
3. Solar is spreading faster than we thought it would.
Solar power has been the largest source of new electricity generation for the last three years. Most of this new solar infrastructure is coming up inside China, and Chinese companies are making so much surplus solar equipment — cells, modules and everything that goes into them — that prices have plummeted.
Forecasts keep underestimating solar growth
Today, solar panels hang from apartment balconies in Germany and cover vast areas of desert in Saudi Arabia. Solar and onshore wind projects offer the cheapest source of new electricity generation. Little wonder, then, that in India’s electricity sector, more than half of the generation capacity now comes from solar, wind and hydropower.
4. Electric vehicles are now normal.
The way the world moves has changed. At the time of the Paris Agreement, Tesla had just unveiled its luxury electric SUV. Fast forward to last year: Worldwide, one in five cars sold was electric.
In the United States, 265,000 children ride electric buses to school. In Kenya, electric motorcycle taxis ferry commuters to work. Chinese carmakers are assembling E.V.s abroad, including in Brazil, Indonesia and, soon, in Saudi Arabia, a petrostate.
World
United States
Electrifying transportation is important because it’s one of the biggest sources of emissions globally. Currently, electric vehicles are displacing 2 million barrels of oil demand per day, roughly equal to Germany’s total daily demand, according to BloombergNEF.
5. Rich countries have put relatively little money on the table.
One of the key tenets of the Paris Agreement was an acknowledgement that countries had different responsibilities. Wealthy industrialized countries were supposed to pony up money to help poorer countries do two things: transition to renewable energy and adapt to the problems brought on by a hotter climate.
Last year, countries agreed that a total of $1.3 trillion would be needed every year by 2035 to help developing countries manage climate harms, including $300 billion a year in public monies from rich countries. That’s far more than what rich countries have thus far made available. Where that money will come from is still uncertain.
Public climate finance from developed countries would need to increase substantially
Meanwhile, some of the poorest countries are getting clobbered by extreme weather. They’re falling deeper into debt as they try to recover.
6. Coal is in a weird place.
The growth of coal is slowing worldwide. That matters because coal, which powered the modern industrial economy, is the dirtiest fossil fuel.
Coal is waning in wealthy countries, including the United States, despite President Trump’s efforts to expand its use. Britain, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, closed its last coal plant in 2024. That year, more than half of Britain’s electricity came from renewables. But coal is still growing in China, which, despite its pledge to clean up its economy, has gone on to build more coal plants than any other country, ever.
In America, coal demand fell faster than expected… …while in China, it grew faster than expected
7. Natural gas, a planet-warming fossil fuel, is ascendant thanks to America.
Over the decade since the Paris Agreement was signed, the United States has rapidly become the world’s leading producer and exporter of gas.
Liquid natural gas opened up an export boom
Mr. Trump, in his second term, has supersized that ambition. He appointed Chris Wright, a former fracking executive, as the U.S. energy secretary, and he has used the sale of American gas as a diplomatic and trade cudgel. That matters because, while gas is cleaner than coal as a source of electricity, it stands to lock the world into gas use for decades to come.
8. Forests are losing their climate superpower.
Fires are increasingly driving forest loss worldwide. That’s because rising temperatures and more intense droughts are making forests burn more easily and also because people are setting fire to forests to clear land for agriculture.
The world’s forests are absorbing less carbon dioxide
That’s limiting the ability of many forests to store planet-warming carbon dioxide. In fact, it’s pushing parts of the Amazon rainforest, often called the lungs of the planet, to a startling tipping point. Parts of the Amazon are releasing more carbon than trees and soil are absorbing. One recent study found the same pattern in the rainforests of Australia.
9. Corals are bleaching more often.
Since 2015, two separate global bleaching events have stretched over six years. They’re happening much more often than before, and affecting more reefs, because the oceans are heating up fast.
Percent of the world’s coral reefs affected by each bleaching event
Corals are important because they support so many other creatures, including fish that millions of people rely on for nutrition and income. About a quarter of all marine species depend on reefs at some point in their life cycle.
Many reefs have been ravaged, but some coral species are turning out to be more resilient to marine heat waves than we had thought. That’s good-ish news, too.
10. U.S. electricity demand is soaring, in part because of A.I.
Power demand had always been expected to increase worldwide. More than a billion people still need access to electricity, and billions of others around the globe are buying air-conditioners and plugging in electric vehicles. But a big surprise came from the United States.
American electricity demand was pretty flat in the 2010s but is now rising significantly and is projected to climb for at least another decade. One reason: energy-hungry A.I. That raises a critical question for Big Tech: Will its A.I. ambitions heat up the planet faster?
After two decades of slower demand growth, energy needs are rising.
What does all this mean for the world’s 8 billion people?
The physical damage inflicted by global warming costs the global economy around $1.4 trillion a year, according to BloombergNEF.
It means we are being forced to adapt to new conditions on a climate-altered planet. Many already are, especially the most vulnerable among us. In India, a women’s union has created a tiny new insurance plan to help workers cope when it gets dangerously hot. In China, a landscape architect has persuaded cities to create porous surfaces to let floodwaters seep in. In the United States, school playgrounds are adding shade to protect kids on exceptionally hot days. In California, an app developer created a tool to help his neighbors track the path of wildfires. In Malawi and Uganda, people are experimenting with growing different crops.
A big problem is, there’s very little money to help them, and even that has declined in the last couple of years.
-
Culture1 week agoVideo: Dissecting Three Stephen King Adaptations
-
Austin, TX2 days agoHalf-naked woman was allegedly tortured and chained in Texas backyard for months by five ‘friends’ who didn’t ‘like her anymore’
-
Education1 week agoOpinion | New York City Mayoral Candidates: Who Would Be Best?
-
Seattle, WA6 days agoESPN scoop adds another intriguing name to Seahawks chatter before NFL trade deadline
-
San Diego, CA1 week agoAdd Nick Hundley, Ruben Niebla to list of Padres’ managerial finalists
-
Business1 week agoCommentary: Meme stocks are still with us, offering new temptations for novice and unwary investors
-
Business1 week ago
Disneyland Resort lays off 100 people in Anaheim
-
Politics1 week agoVirginia school district slapped with complaint alleging new claims in viral trans locker room fight