Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Controversies in Breast Cancer Research

  • Chapter
Breast Cancer

Abstract

The cover article “Advances in Breast Cancer Research” of a recent Harvard Women’s Health Watch exemplifies why much of breast cancer research remains controversial. Although the article begins, “In the last few months, breast cancer research appears to have undergone a climatic shift,” its content becomes restricted to two drugs for prevention (tamoxifen and raloxifene) and two for treatment (paclitaxel and Herceptin) of the disease (Robb-Nicholson 1998a). By reporting on drugs with side effects, such as increased risk of uterine cancer and blood clots, and with relatively small effects in preventing and treating the disease in certain high risk groups, this article typifies the biomedical approach to illness that characterizes breast cancer research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Altekruse, Joan M., and Sue V. Rosser. 1992. “Feminism and Medicine: Cooptation or Cooperation?” Pp. 27–40 in The Knowledge Explosion, ed. Cheris Kramarae and Dale Spender. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, Roberta. 1996. Waking Up/Fighting Back: The Politics of Breast Cancer. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Cancer Society 1999. “Breast Cancer Facts and Figures.” Atlanta, Ga.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angell, Marcia. 1997. Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, B., and Richard Doll. 1975. “Environmental Factors and Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Different Countries, with Special Reference to Dietary Practice.” International Journal of Cancer 15:617–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailar, John C., and Elaine Smith. 1986. “Progress Against Cancer?” New England Journal of Medicine 8:1226–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batt, Sharon. 1994. The Politics of Breast Cancer. Charlottetown, P. E. I, Canada: Gynergy Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Begg, C. B. 1988. “Selection of Patients for Clinical Trials.” Seminars in Oncology 15:434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birke, Lynda. 1986. Women, Feminism, and Biology. New York: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleier, Ruth. 1984. Science and Gender: A Critique of Biology and its Theories on Women. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleier, Ruth. 1986. “Sex Differences Research: Science or Belief?” Pp. 147–64 in Feminist Approaches to Science, ed. Ruth Bleier. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. 1973. Our Bodies, Ourselves. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buell, P. 1973. “Changing Incidence of Breast Cancer in Japanese-American Women.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 51:1479–1783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charney, Pamela, and Carole Morgan. 1996. “Do Treatment Recommendations Reported in the Research Literature Consider Differences Between Women and Men?” Journal of Women’s Health 5(6):579–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Defense. 2000. Breast Cancer Research Program, Program Announcement. U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command. Fort Detrick, Md.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowie, Mark, and Tracy Johnston. 1977. “A Case of Corporate Malpractice and the Dalkon Shield.” Pp. 89–104 in Seizing Our Bodies, ed. Claudia Dreifus. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 1992. Myths of Gender. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fee, Elizabeth. 1981. “Is Feminism a Threat to Scientific Objectivity?” International Journal of Women’s Studies 4:213–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fee, Elizabeth. 1982. “A Feminist Critique of Scientific Objectivity.” Science for the People 14(4):8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Bernard, Carol Redmond, Leslie Ford, and Susan Nayfield. 1992. “Investigators of the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial Reply.” New England Journal of Medicine 327(22): 1596–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Suzanne. 1997. “Whither Scientific Deliberation in Health Policy Recommendations: Alice in the Wonderland of Breast-Cancer Screening.” New England Journal of Medicine 336(16): 1180–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fugh-Berman, Adriane, and Samuel Epstein. 1992. “Should Healthy Women Take Tamoxifen?” New England Journal of Medicine 327(22):1596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, J. S., W. C. Hunt, C. R. Key, and J. M. Samet. 1988. “Cancer Treatment Protocols: Who Gets Chosen?” Archives of Internal Medicine 148:2258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grobbee, D. E., E. B. Rimm, E. Giovannucci, G. Colditz, M. Stampfer, and W. Willett. 1990. “Coffee, Caffeine, and Cardiovascular Disease in Men.” New England Journal of Medicine 321:1026–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurwitz, J. H., F. C. Nananda, and J. Avorn. 1992. “The Exclusion of the Elderly and Women from Clinical Trials in Acute Myocardial Infarction.” Journal of the American Medical Association 268(2):1417–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, Jean. 1985. “Avoiding Methodological Biases in Gender-Related Research.” In Women’s Health Report of the Public Health Task Force on Women’s Health Issues. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, Donna. 1978. “Animal Sociology and a Natural Economy of the Body Politic, Part I: A Political Physiology of Dominance;” and “Animal Sociology and a Natural Economy of the Body Politic, Part II: The Past is the Contested Zone: Human Nature and Theories of Production and Reproduction in Primate Behavior Studies.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 4(1):21–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, Donna. 1989. “Monkeys, Aliens, and Women: Love, Science, and Politics at the Intersection of Feminist Theory and Colonial Discourse.” Women’s Studies International Forum 12(3):295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, Donna. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium: Femaleman⊕ Meets Oncomouse:™ Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, Sandra. 1993. The “Racial” Economy of Science: Toward a Democratic Future. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, Sandra. 1998. Is Science Multicultural? Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, Bernadine. 1991. “Women’s Health, Public Welfare.” Journal of the American Medical Association 264(4):566–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, Robin. 1994. “Tamoxifen on Trial.” Washington Post (September 23) 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrushesky, William. 1996. “Breast Cancer, Timing of Surgery, and the Menstrual Cycle: Call for Prospective Trial.” Journal of Women’s Health 5(6):555–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrushesky, William, A. Z. Bluming, S. A. Gruber, and R. B. Sothern. 1989. “Menstrual Influence on Surgical Cure of Breast Cancer.” Lancet 2:949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, Ruth. 1990. Politics of Women’s Biology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, C. P. 1989. “Cancer Control and the Community Oncology Programs: Minority Participation in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Network.” P. 94 in Minorities and Cancer, ed. L. A. Jones. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaggar, Alison M. 1983. Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1982. “Feminism and Science.” Signs 7(3):589–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, Sandra. 1983. A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, Sandra. 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, Sandra. 1992. Secrets of Life, Secrets of Death. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Mary-Claire, Sara Rowell, and Susan M. Love. 1993. “Inherited Breast and Ovarian Cancer: What Are the Risks? What Are the Choices?” Journal of the American Medical Association 269(15): 1975–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerman, C., M. Daly, A. Masny, and A. Balshem. 1994. “Attitudes about Genetic Testing for Breast-Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility.” Journal of Clinical Oncology 12:843–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippman, Mark, and Bruce Chabner. 1986. “Editorial Overview of NIH Consensus Development Conference on Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer.” National Cancer Institute Monograph 1. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, Susan M. 1990. Dr. Susan Love’s Breast Book. New York: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marwick, Charles. 1997. “Final Mammography Recommendation.” Journal of the American Medical Association 277(15): 1181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, S. 1987. Scientific Colonialism: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group. 1990. “Mortality Rates After 10.5 Years for Participants in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: Findings Related to a Prior Hypothesis of the Trial.” Journal of the American Medical Association 263:1795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC). 1997. “Legislative Update.” Call to Action 4(3–4):6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC). 1998. “Campaign: Vote Breast Cancer.” 1998 Voting Record 2 5(1):2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norwood, Chris. 1988. “Alarming Rise in Deaths.” Ms. (July) 65–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paskett, Electra D., Hyman B. Muss, L. Douglas Case, and M. Robert Cooper. 1996. “Participation in Clinical Treatment Trials: Factors Affecting Participation for Women with Breast Cancer.” Journal of Women’s Health 5(6):585–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raloff, Janet. 1994. “Tamoxifen Turmoil: New Issues Emerge as Healthy Women Volunteer to Take Potent Drug.” Science News 146(17):268–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robb-Nicholson, Celeste. 1998a. “Advances in Breast Cancer Research.” Harvard Women’s Health Watch V(11):1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robb-Nicholson 1998b. “New Studies Question Tamoxifen’s Benefits.” Harvard Women’s Health Watch VI(1):7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, Sue V. 1986. Teaching Science and Health from a Feminist Perspective: A Practical Guide. Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, Sue V. 1988. “Women in Science and Health Care: A Gender at Risk.” Pp. 3–15 in Feminism Within the Science of Health Care Professions: Overcoming Resistance, ed. Sue V. Rosser. Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, Sue V. 1994. Women’s Health: Missing from U.S. Medicine. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, Sue V. 1997. “The Next Millennium is Here Now: Women’s Studies Perspectives on Biotechnics and Reproductive Technologies.” Transformations 8(1): 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, Rita. 1998. “FDA Panel Oks Two Breast Cancer Drugs.” USA Today (September 3) ID, 5D.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scully, Diana, and Pauline Bart. 1973. “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Orifice: Women in Gynecology Textbooks.” American Journal of Sociology 78:1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seaman, Barbara, and Gideon Seaman. 1977. Women and the Crisis in Sex Hormones. New York: Rawson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senie, R., P. Rosen, P. Rhondes, and M. Lesser. 1991. “Timing of Breast Cancer Excision During the Menstrual Cycle Influences Duration of Disease-Free Survival.” Annals of Internal Medicine 115:337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanier, Bonnie. 1995. Impartial Science: Gender Ideology in Molecular Biology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steering Committee of the Physician’s Health Study Group. 1989. “Final Report on the Aspirin Component of the Ongoing Physician’s Health Study.” New England Journal of Medicine 321:129–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. 1994. “Gender Equity in Research.” Journal of Women’s Health 3:143–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. 1994. “NIH Guidelines on the Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research; Notice.” Federal Register 59:14508–15413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yancik, R., S. G. Ries, and J. W. Yates. 1989. “Breast Cancer in Aging Women: A Population-Based Study of Contrasts in Stage, Surgery, and Survival.” Cancer 63:976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B., et al. 1980. “People’s Science.” Pp. 299–319 in Science and Liberation, ed. Rita Arditti, Pat Brennan, and Steve Cavrak. Boston: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Sue V. Rosser Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2000 Anne S. Kasper, Susan J. Ferguson

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rosser, S.V. (2000). Controversies in Breast Cancer Research. In: Breast Cancer. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-03779-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-03779-4_9

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-312-29451-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-03779-4

  • eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation