Cooler than #SharkWeek: Another Fin-Filled Link Roundup!

Shark Week is officially over. I’ve said all I have to say about the mockumentary and Discovery’s defense of it, but to properly wrap up the annual festivities, I wanted to link to all of the wonderful Cooler than #SharkWeek posts that have been shared since Wednesday. Have a sharky weekend!

 

I wasn’t the only one chatting about Shark Week: David Shiffman had a great CNN interview, Brian Switek explains that this is just a small part of a larger problem, and Alex Warneke explains why Discovery’s scientific integrity matters so much.

(Though those big sharks have itty bitty brains, by the way. But how do you feed them?)

Also, Megalodon was definitely not the coolest ancient shark.

Want to know what a real shark biologist does in an average day? I chatted with Mark to find out.

Why our obsession with size? Most sharks are wee little things.

I know it seems scary, but there’s no need to fear: you’re not going to get attacked by a shark.

Did you know great whites eat more than seals?

The National Resources Defense Council gets in on the Cooler than #SharkWeek action with a conversation with shark scientist Brad Sewell, and in the same vein, more cool shark scientists from Texas A & M.

People have different personalities, but are all sharks the same?

One mom, many dads. Shark reproduction is complicated.

No one likes to be alone—even sharks make friends and have social networks.

Can we design a shark-proof suit? Good question.

Oh, and the mystery of the subway shark has been solved.

Cooler than #SharkWeek: Real Shark Biologist Mark Royer

Dr Collin Drake doesn’t exist, but there are plenty of real shark biologists in the world. This week, I sat down with my friend Mark Royer, a Ph.D. Student at the University of Hawai’i who has perhaps the coolest job on Earth: he grapples with sharks for a living.

No, really.

Mark is a part of the Shark Research Team from the Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology, led by two of the most renowned shark biologists in the world: Carl Meyer and Kim Holland. The research group has been studying the sharks of Hawai’i for decades, and as a lab, have produced dozens of publications on shark biology, ecology, and physiology.

I can’t help but feel small in Mark’s presence—at over six feet tall, he towers over me. His loose-fitting t-shirt does nothing to hide the broad-shouldered body that lies beneath. With the musculature of a triathlete, Mark looks like he could take on just about any shark out there, save perhaps a large great white. And I know he has—as a part of his daily work, he has helped handle everything from baby hammerheads to large tiger sharks. But Mark’s intimidating stature, which among friends has earned him the moniker “Captain America”, belies the sweet young man that got to where he is now simply because he really loved the water. Continue reading “Cooler than #SharkWeek: Real Shark Biologist Mark Royer”

Cooler than #SharkWeek: A Shark-Infested Link Roundup!

The truth. It hurts. (via Reddit)

What’s cooler than mockumentaries? THIS STUFF. I’m not the only one who has picked up on Brian Switek’s Cooler than #SharkWeek idea. The following are some awesome sharky posts linked to from the news, blogs or twitter. I even threw in some non-shark marine biology, just because marine biology rocks. Continue reading “Cooler than #SharkWeek: A Shark-Infested Link Roundup!”

Cooler than #SharkWeek: Shark Cartilage Won’t Cure Cancer

Discovery Channel has pissed off tons of its viewers—including me and Wil Wheaton—by launching shark week with the mockumentary “Megalodon: The Monster Shark That Lives”. With so much awesome shark science out there, it’s sad that they had to stoop so low for ratings. In response to the outrage, Brian Switek started “Cooler than #SharkWeek” on twitter, highlighting actual research on sharks. I’m continuing the movement by posting or reposting a blog entry about sharks every day this week. So instead of watching Shark Week, tune into Science Sushi all week for real shark science! For today’s post, we revisit my 2011 post on the pseudoscience of shark cartilage pills…

 

Tiger Shark at Coconut Island
Tiger Shark at Coconut Island

Sharks are incredible animals. They’re some of the world’s most well known creatures, popular enough to get entire weeks of television dedicated to them. They hold a special place in our hearts and minds. Whether you fear them or love them, or a bit of both, they’ve dominated our oceans for hundreds of millions of years, and still manage to evoke powerful emotions from us.

But, as amazing as they are, they are not going to cure cancer. Continue reading “Cooler than #SharkWeek: Shark Cartilage Won’t Cure Cancer”

Cooler than #SharkWeek: Mounting Evidence Suggests Sharks Are In Serious Trouble

Discovery Channel has pissed off tons of its viewers—including me and Wil Wheaton—by launching shark week with the mockumentary “Megalodon: The Monster Shark That Lives”. With so much awesome shark science out there, it’s sad that they had to stoop so low for ratings. In response to the outrage, Brian Switek started “Cooler than #SharkWeek” on twitter, highlighting actual research on sharks. I’m continuing the movement by posting or reposting a blog entry about sharks every day this week. So instead of watching Shark Week, tune into Science Sushi all week for real shark science! We’ll kick it off with some sobering statistics about shark populations from my 2012 Science Sushi post, highlighting recent NOAA research on Sharks. FYI, NOAA happens to be hosting their own Shark Week (#NOAASharkWeek), which you should definitely check out!


Can you imagine oceans without sharks? We may soon have to, as new research suggests may already be 90% of the way there. Continue reading “Cooler than #SharkWeek: Mounting Evidence Suggests Sharks Are In Serious Trouble”

Fish-Slapped! Thresher Sharks Stun Sardines With Speedy Tails

Anyone who has been on the receiving end of a truly hard slap knows just how jarring forceful impacts can be. In the animals world, slapping can be used to disorient and stun prey, making them easy pickings for an intelligent predator. Creating a slap with such force can be tough, though, especially in a liquid environment. Killer whales can do it. But while scientists have long hypothesized that thresher sharks might use tail-slapping to stun prey, none had actually studied the kinematics of their tail-waiving behavior to determine if these sharks actually slap or just herd fish with their tails like dolphins do.

The impressively long tail of a thresher shark.
Photo by Flickr user Raven_Denmark

Thresher sharks are found worldwide, and are known for their particularly stunning rears. The tails of these sharks can represent an impressive 50% their total length! A fact which is even more daunting when you consider that the common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) can grow up to 20 feet long and weigh in at over 1,000 pounds. But these giant ocean predators don’t tend to hang around our shores; lucky for us, they prefer the open ocean where they travel long distances to feed on schools of fish. Continue reading “Fish-Slapped! Thresher Sharks Stun Sardines With Speedy Tails”

Mythbusting 101: bulking up with bull shark testosterone

This week, the startling image of a 1,000 pound bull shark has been circulating the internets. But what really caught my eye was the quote from the lead researcher. He told news outlets that bull sharks “have the most testosterone of any animal on the planet, so that should tell you a little something.” Tsk tsk. No matter what those websites tell you, it’s simply not true.

This isn’t the first time I have heard this whole bull sharks and testosterone bit. Indeed, all over the internet, you see claims that bull sharks are so aggressive because of their insane testosterone levels. But it was the character Bruce Kibbutz in Grand Theft Auto IV that really got people talking about bull shark testosterone. During the game, the roid-raging fitness freak explains how he juices on testosterone taken from Chilean bull sharks. Suddenly, extreme body builders and skeptics wanted to know if you could really bulk up on bull shark blood.

The rumor, as I’d heard it in college, is that the fierce attitudes of these large and aggressive sharks is due to unfathomably high circulating levels of testosterone. Specifically, these menacing monsters supposedly have higher serum testosterone levels than any species on the planet, land or sea, and that even a female bull shark has higher levels than a testosterone-raged male elephant in musth. I know I’m as much to blame as anyone, as I’ve repeated that line myself. But when I was asked about it, I realized that I didn’t know if it’s true. How do the circulating testosterone levels compare between bull sharks and other species? Could you procure enough testosterone by catching and eating bull sharks to beef up your body?

Let’s start with that elephant. In the red corner, standing up to 11.5 feet tall and weighing in at up to 20,000 lbs, we have the African Bush Elephant (Loxodonta africana). What’s the testosterone level in this whomping beast? During much of the year, not much. Male elephants, on average, have less than 2 ng/ml ciculating in their plasma. But wait! Big boy wants to get his groove on, and he is getting ready for a season of fighting and fornicating. So what’s the male elephant in musth’s testosterone level? As high as 64.4 ng/ml! About a 60 fold increase in average circulating testosterone1. Ai! That’s a lot of anger-pumping hormone.

How about his opponent, the every day female bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas)? In the blue corner, weighing in at around 505 lbs and stretching almost 12 feet long, is our large and in charge girl. She’s bigger than her man, no doubt, but she still has to keep her femininity about her. After all, as a girl, if her testosterone levels are too high, she might have reproductive issues. Surely her circulating levels are lower than the male elephant’s?

According to the only, extremely obscure published reference with testosterone levels in a female bull shark, actually, yes, they are2. Her circulating testosterone level is right around 0.1 ng/ml, a whole lot lower than that angry elephant. Sorry to burst bubbles, but she ain’t gonna give anyone roid rage. Her man, though… My oh my. One of the two male adult bull sharks in that study had a circulating testosterone level of 358 ng/ml. Yeah, that’s one roided out shark. Problem is, the other male bull shark in that study only had 2.7 ng/ml of testosterone in his serum – which is probably less than you male readers out there have pumping in your blood right now. So not all male bull sharks are running around roided out of their minds. To be fair, these were just single sharks, caught once and tested once. Without a more complete study of the average hormone levels in bull sharks, by size, season, etc, we can’t really say that bull sharks have abnormally high or low testosterone levels.

Of course, there is a more complete study. Not a super detailed one, but a study none the less. Rasmussen & Murru3 studied androgen levels in a number of captive sharks over time. They found testosterone levels of 10 ng/ml to 20 ng/ml in two captive bull sharks when they measured every June for three years, just after the sharks’ normal breeding season. Not too impressive, boys – not too impressive, but of course, that is in captivity, and it’s unknown how captivity may affect their hormone levels.

In wild bull sharks caught right before the breeding season, the serum levels were much higher: 185 ng/ml on average – which was 4 to 10 times higher than the levels they found in two other shark species, and is pretty impressive compared to the elephant. But, it turns out, it’s not that hard to find high testosterone levels in fish. Other sharks have high levels, too – like the bonnethead, Sphyrna tiburo, whose highest levels have been recorded at 303 ng/ml4. And in that species, even the girls have higher levels than our elephant – a whopping 74 ng/ml at max5. Believe me, I’d rather go hunting bonnethead than bull sharks any day. Other fish, too, have been found to have high testosterone. Male rainbow trout have levels around the same as those of the bonnetheads6, and heck, they sound a whole lot tastier to me than the other options. Just sayin’. Sorry folks, but according to the best, albeit limited scientific information we have, the idea that bull sharks are super juiced-up compared to other animals just isn’t true.

Yet in the news and even on the Discovery Channel’s infamous Shark Week, the highest-testosterone-in-the-world bull shark is the norm. How did the data end up so skewed towards this single result? As I see it, it is the scientific community that is to blame for the impression that bull sharks are testosterone-pumped. Every other paper I read about shark hormones since the two with bull sharks cites them, specifically mentioning 358 ng/ml and that bull sharks have much higher levels than other sharks.

Now that I read the papers, I see it’s not the media’s fault. It’s the original authors that claim that bull sharks have higher testosterone than other sharks, even without presenting evidence to back it up. It started with how Rasmussen & Gruber were quick to point out how high that 358 ng/ml value is, saying it’s “among the highest recorded in vertebrate serum,” but didn’t talk at all about why the other mature male bull shark (by their own identification) was more than one hundred fold lower. But it’s really Rasmussen & Murru (hmm… that first name sounds familiar), in their discussion, who seem to overinflate their own data. They state that “a species differences in absolute concentrations appears to exist because concentrations of testosterone in both wild and captive bull sharks were about two times higher than those in mature sandbar and lemon sharks” (emphasis mine). Yet their included figure showing the yearly serum concentrations for the two captive bull sharks studied clearly shows the levels between 5 ng/ml and 20 ng/ml, while the levels for the two captive sandbar sharks sampled at the same and different times of year range from 0 ng/ml to over 40 ng/ml! Two to four times higher in bull sharks? Where? When?!

But enough griping about inaccurate inflation of results. Let’s say, for a hypothetical moment, that there is a time of year, size, or whatever where you could go out with a shark hook and some dead fish and guarantee getting a big boy bull shark with upwards of 300 ng/ml in his system. It’s time to address the other part of the myth: Should serious users think about going fishing?

You’ll have one big fish to fry if you’re trying to get a nice dose of testosterone by ingesting sea creatures. First off, I hope you’re feeling vampiric. You want the blood, not the tissues. We don’t know anything about how much testosterone is in bull shark tissues, and besides, that super high amount was in the blood… so, yeah. Cheers. Second off, unless you’re planning on shooting up shark blood, you’re not getting the dose you think. Orally ingested testosterone is rapidly absorbed by the gut, but it’s also converted to inactive metabolites, leaving you with only 1/6th the dose you took remaining in active form. That’s why pills and injections aren’t actually of straight testosterone, they’re of slightly modified chemicals that the body doesn’t metabolize as easily. It also means that to get the same dose from shark as you would from a prescription (or black market) pill, you have to drink six times what you think you have to.

So let’s say you want to replace that 40 mg pill you bought with bull shark blood. Even if you catch that one shark that had 350 ng/ml in his serum, that means you’ll have to drink down three cups of shark plasma to equal one pill. A shark tends to be about 12.3% blood by weight according to previous studies7 – that’s 6.8% blood cells and 5.5% serum, which has a specific gravity (weight per volume) of around 1.03. So say you caught an average bull shark, weighing only 350 lbs instead of the max of 500. He’ll have around 44 cups of blood in him, which is only 44% plasma, so you’ll need to drink 6.8 cups of blood per pill. So at 2-5 pills a day, that shark will only last you one to three days. Hey – I guess it’s legal. Though somehow, I don’t think athletes are going to get away with the old “I was just drinking shark blood” excuse just because of that.

Of course, all of that assumes that the majority of bull sharks are swimming around with high testosterone levels, which as the data reveals, simply isn’t likely. What’s worse, though, is that by perpetuating the idea of roided-out sharks, we’re giving credence to the idea that bull sharks are mindless killing machines with a taste for blood. While bull sharks are certainly dangerous animals, they are far from the angry maneaters they’re portrayed to be. Given that you’re still more likely to die from being struck by lightning that by a shark attack, and that there are probably hundreds of thousands of bull sharks in the Atlantic Ocean alone… I’d say the bull sharks are being pretty restrained.

 

Citations: 1. JAINUDEEN, M., KATONGOLE, C., & SHORT, R. (1972). PLASMA TESTOSTERONE LEVELS IN RELATION TO MUSTH AND SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN THE MALE ASIATIC ELEPHANT, ELEPHAS MAXIMUS Reproduction, 29 (1), 99-103 DOI: 10.1530/jrf.0.0290099

2. Harold L. Pratt, Jr., Samuel H. Gruber, & Toru Taniuchi (editors) (1990). Elasmobranchs as Living Resources: Advances in the Biology, Ecology, Systematics, and the Status of the Fisheries NOAA Technical Report NMFS 90, 143-155

3. Rasmussen, L., & Murru, F. (1992). Long-term studies of Serum Concentrations of reproductively related Steriod Hormones in individual captive Carcharhinids Marine and Freshwater Research, 43 (1) DOI: 10.1071/MF9920273

4. Manire, C. (1997). Serum Concentrations of Steroid Hormones in the Mature Male Bonnethead Shark,Sphyrna tiburo General and Comparative Endocrinology, 107 (3), 414-420 DOI: 10.1006/gcen.1997.6937

5. Manire, C. (1995). Serum Steroid Hormones and the Reproductive Cycle of the Female Bonnethead Shark, Sphyrna tiburo General and Comparative Endocrinology, 97 (3), 366-376 DOI: 10.1006/gcen.1995.1036

6. Scott, A. P., & Baynes, S. M. (1982). Plasma levels of sex steroids in relation to ovulation and spermiation in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) Proc. Int. Symp. Reprod. Physiol. Fish, 103-106

7. Thorson, T. (1962). Partitioning of Body Fluids in the Lake Nicaragua Shark and Three Marine Sharks Science, 138 (3541), 688-690 DOI: 10.1126/science.138.3541.688

Note: this post is updated from a version posted on Science Blogs in 2010

Mounting Evidence Suggests Sharks Are In Serious Trouble

Can you imagine oceans without sharks? We may soon have to, as new research suggests may already be 90% of the way there.

Studying shark populations can be tricky. As David Shiffman explains well, while there are a number of methods that can be used to study shark populations, quantifying just how far their numbers have fallen can be difficult. However, recent research out of the University of Hawaii suggests that the presence of humans has a severe and strong negative impact on sharks, driving down numbers by over 90%.

Sharks play a vital role in coral reef ecosystems. Yet every year, millions are killed for asian delicacies and disproven cancer cures. There is no question our shark fishing habits have devastated their populations; the only questions that remain are how much of an effect are we having, and can the sharks recover.

In an effort to answer the first, the research team crunched data from 1607 surveys from the NOAA Coastal Reef Ecosystem Division (CRED) to calculate the effect of human habitation on shark populations. The CRED team counted sharks throughout the Pacific using towed diver surveys, the most efficient and effective way to study open ocean creatures on a large spatial scale, and compared their counts with local human population numbers. Their results were clear – and sobering.

“Around each of the heavily populated areas we surveyed — in the main Hawaiian Islands, the Mariana Archipelago and American Samoa — reef shark numbers were greatly depressed,” said Marc Nadon, lead author of the study. “We estimate that less than 10% of the baseline numbers remain in these areas.”

The team also looked at other factors that might be affecting shark populations, including temperature and reef productivity. However, while sharks preferred warmer waters full of potential prey, the negative impact of humans dwarfed these effects. “Our results suggest humans now exert a stronger influence on the abundance of reef sharks than either habitat quality or oceanographic factors,” the authors wrote.

The team estimated that less than 100 people is enough to cut shark populations by 20%. Even 1,000 people – which is much less than the population of many small islands in the Pacific – was enough to decrease shark populations by 60%. As Nadon put it, “In short, people and sharks don’t mix.”

The findings are consistent with other research in the field. A 2003 paper, for example, found that shark populations in the Northwestern Atlantic dropped over 65% between 1986 and 2000. Similarly, a 2010 paper estimated that shark populations in the Chagos Archipelago had declined 90% since the 1970s. The more we study sharks, the worse the picture becomes, and the stronger the case becomes for conservation efforts. We simply cannot continue to treat these animals the way we do now, for all scientific evidence suggests the day is fast approaching when there will be no sharks left to exploit.

Reference: Nolan et al. Re-Creating Missing Population Baselines for Pacific Reef Sharks. Conservation Biology; DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01835.x

Mythbusting 101: Sharks will cure cancer

Tiger Shark at Coconut Island
Tiger Shark at Coconut Island

Sharks are incredible animals. They’re some of the world’s most well known creatures, popular enough to get entire weeks of television dedicated to them. They hold a special place in our hearts and minds. Whether you fear them or love them, or a bit of both, they’ve dominated our oceans for hundreds of millions of years, and still manage to evoke powerful emotions from us.

But, as amazing as they are, they are not going to cure cancer.

First off, there will never be a “cure for cancer”. Not now, not in 50 years, no matter how much we know about how cancers form and spread. And no, it won’t be because there is some big conspiracy, where doctors and pharmaceutical companies are keeping some miracle drug from hitting the market.

You see, there can’t be a cure for cancer, because cancer isn’t a single disease. Cancer is a category of diseases, like rock is a category of music. While rock music is characterized by being song-based, usually with a 4/4 beat and a verse-chorus form, cancer is characterized by cell growth gone terribly wrong, allowing a group of cells to grow uncontrollably. You wouldn’t say that Korn and Elvis sound the same, would you? Well not all cancers are the same, either. Some cancers are slow growing, some are fast. Some are always fatal, others go away on their own.

The thing is, there is no universal trait to all cancers that can be attacked with one treatment, except for the fact that they are cells that grow out of control. Thus a universal cure for cancer would have to be something that prevented and reversed cell growth, which will never, ever be safe to take over an extended period of time. You need cells to grow and replicate in your body – just not when and where they shouldn’t be.

The treatment for a given cancer is heavily dependent on where it is and what it’s doing. There may eventually be a million cures – a cure for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, a cure for Basal Cell Carcinoma, a cure for Craniopharyngioma, and so on and so forth from A to Z – but there will never, ever be a cure for cancer.

But I digress.

The notion that sharks may hold they key to curing cancer rests on the idea that sharks don’t get cancer. Out of all they myths in the world, there are few that have been more ecologically damaging and pervasive despite unequivocal scientific evidence to the contrary. This simply untrue statement has led to the slaughter of millions of sharks via the industry for shark cartilage pills, which are sold to desperate cancer patients under the false pretense that they can help reduce or cure their illness.

The myth started way back in the 1970s when Henry Brem and Judah Folkman from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine first noted that cartilage prevented the growth of new blood vessels into tissues. This creation of a blood supply, called angiogenesis, is one of the key characteristics of malignant tumors, as the rapidly dividing cells need lots of nutrients to continue growing. It’s not shocking, then, that angiogenesis is a common target for those seeking potential cancer therapies.

Brem and Folkman began studying cartilage to search for anti-angiogenic compounds. They reasoned that since all cartilage lacks blood vessels, it must contain some signaling molecules or enzymes that prevent capillaries from forming. They found that inserting cartilage from baby rabbits alongside tumors in experimental animals completely prevented the tumors from growing1. Further research showed calf cartilage, too, had anti-angiogenic properties2. A young researcher by the name of Robert Langer decided to repeat the initial rabbit cartilage experiments, except this time using shark cartilage. Since sharks’ skeletons are entirely composed of cartilage, Langer reasoned that they would be a far more accessible source for potential therapeutics. And indeed, shark cartilage, like calf and rabbit cartilage, inhibited blood vessels from growing toward tumors 3.

Around the same time, a scientist by the name of Carl Luer at Mote Marine Laboratories in Sarasota, FL was looking into sharks and cancer, too. He’d noticed that sharks seem to have relatively low rates of disease, especially cancer, and wanted to test their susceptibility experimentally. So he exposed nurse sharks to high levels of aflatoxin B1, a known carcinogen, and found no evidence that they developed tumors4.

That’s when Dr. I William Lane stepped in. He’d heard about the studies done by Langer and Luer, and become immediately entrenched in the idea that oral shark cartilage could be a treatment for cancer. In 1992 he published the book Sharks Don’t Get Cancer: How Shark Cartilage Could Save Your Life. The book was a best-seller, popular enough to draw in the media from 60 Minutes who did a special on Lane and his new cancer cure. The segment featured Lane and Cuban physicians and patients who had participated in a non-randomized and shoddily done ‘clinical trial’ in Mexico which heralded spectacular results. He then co-authored a second book, Sharks Still Don’t Get Cancer, in 1996.

Of course, Lane started up his own shark fishing and cartilage pill making business called LaneLabs (which still made and sold cartilage pills until recently). But Lane was not alone – many companies began selling shark cartilage pills and powders as alternative therapies or nutritional supplements. The world market for shark cartilage products was estimated to have exceeded $30 million in 1995, prompting more and more harvesting of sharks for their cartilage.

The results have been devastating. North American populations of sharks have  decreased by up to 80% in the past decade, as cartilage companies harvest up to 200,000 sharks every month in US waters to create their products. One American-owned shark cartilage plant in Costa Rica is estimated to destroy 2.8 million sharks per year5. Sharks are slow growing species, and simply cannot reproduce fast enough to survive such sustained, intense fishing pressure. Unless fishing is dramatically decreased worldwide, a number of species of sharks will go extinct before we even notice.

It’s bad enough that all this ecological devastation is for a pill that doesn’t even work. Shark cartilage does not cure or treat cancer in any way, even in mouse models6. These are also the results of at least three randomized, FDA-approved clinical trials – one in 19987, another in 20058, and a final one presented in 2007 (published in 2010)9. Ingestion of shark cartilage powders or extracts had absolutely no positive effects on cancers that varied in type and severity. To paraphrase Dr. Andrew Vickers, shark cartilage as a cancer cure isn’t untested or unproven, it’s disproven10. Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission stepped in by 2000, fining Lane $1 million as well as banning him from claiming that his supplements, or any shark cartilage derivatives, could prevent, treat or cure cancer.

But what’s worse is that this entire fraudulent enterprise that steals the money of those desperate for any kind of hope is based on a myth. No matter what a money-grubbing man with a PhD in Agricultural Biochemistry and Nutrition tries to tell you, sharks do get cancer.

Shark Tumors
L: Kidney Tumor, R: Cartilage Tumor

In 2004, Dr Gary Ostrander and his colleagues from the University of Hawaii published a survey of the Registry for Tumors in Lower Animals11. Already in collection, they found 42 tumors in Chondrichthyes species (the class of cartilaginous fish that includes sharks, skates and rays). These included at least 12 malignant tumors and tumors throughout the body. Two sharks had multiple tumors, suggesting they were genetically susceptible or exposed to extremely high levels of carcinogens. There were even tumors found in shark cartilage! Ostrander hoped that this information would finally put to rest the myth that sharks are somehow magically cancer-free.

But it hasn’t. I still see all kinds of shark cartilage pills for sale at the local GNC. But furthermore, the myth that sharks are cancer-free is still believed by many intelligent people. I read a tweet from The National Aquarium a while ago that said “It must be something in the water. Sharks are the only known species to never suffer from cancer.” The National Aquarium has over 9,000 twitter followers, and this inaccurate tweet was passed on by a number of them, including The Smithsonian Marine Station in Fort Pierce, FL. How can such a large non-profit, dedicated to “extending the knowledge and resources gained through daily operations toward the betterment of the natural environment” perpetuate such an erroneous and ecologically damaging myth?

Then there’s the BBC, whose division called BBC Earth decided to run a “trick or treat” campaign for Halloween last year featuring truths or falsehoods about different animals. Among them?

Trick or Treat? Sharks don't get cancer

When I called them out on their egregious error, they didn’t even admit they were wrong. Instead they simply said that “the science behind their immune systems is still an area of fascination which we know little about, and thankfully people are still studying.”

Maybe I haven’t been clear. Maybe we don’t know everything about shark immune systems, but there is one thing that we do know with 100% certainty.

SHARKS DO GET CANCER.

We can’t even really say they get cancer less often than other species. It’s true that the number of sharks that we have observed with cancer is low. However, only a couple studies have even attempted to look at disease rates in shark species. Furthermore, these studies are hampered by the fact that sharks tend to be wide-ranging, open ocean fish. They live in some of the least contaminated areas on earth. This means that, odds are, they have low levels of exposure to the chemicals that cause cancer in so many land and near-shore species. Furthermore, the odds that a really sick shark would make it into a researcher’s hands to study are slim. A shark whose function is compromised by tumors would likely end up the meal of other, hungry sharks long before they’d end up on a hook cast by scientists. So even the idea that sharks have low rates of cancer or disease is hard to scientifically support.

Perhaps the most disappointing part is that the shark immune system is incredibly fascinating and worth study whether or not it can squash out cancer. Sharks are the earliest evolutionary lineage to have developed an adaptive immune system complete with immunoglobin, T-cell receptors, MHCs and RAG proteins12, and they do it without bone marrow, the source of almost all of our immune system cells. Instead, they have two completely unique immune organs, the Leydig’s and Epigonal organs, that are barely understood. Studying the shark immune system is essential to understanding the evolution of adaptive immunity that is present in all higher vertebrates. And if, indeed, they are resistant to cancer, then that makes the study of their immune system all that much more important.

Carcasses of sharks fished for their fins

Instead, we mindlessly kill millions of them a year to make Asian delicacies and ineffective cancer treatments, and we perpetuate the myth that sharks don’t get cancer. Be assured that whenever I see someone say that sharks don’t get cancer, I will call them out, especially if they should know better. It’s time that this myth is busted once and for all.

 

Images: A 5′ tiger shark at Coconut Island, photo © Christie Wilcox; LaneLabs Shark Cartilage Powder; Tumor examples from Ostrander et al. 2004. Left: a shark kidney tumor, right: a tumor in shark cartilage; Sharks at a factory finning plant in Japan, photo © Alex Hofford

References

  1. Brem H, & Folkman J. (1975). Inhibition of tumor angiogenesis mediated by cartilage. J Exp Med (141), 427-439 DOI: 10.1084/jem.141.2.427
  2. Langer R, & et al (1976). Isolations of a cartilage factor that inhibits tumor neovascularization. Science (193), 70-72 DOI: 10.1126/science.935859
  3. Lee A, & Langer R. (1983). Shark cartilage contains inhibitors of tumor angiogenesis. Science (221), 1185-1187 DOI: 10.1126/science.6193581
  4. Luer CA, & Luer WH (1982). Acute and chronic exposure of nurse sharks to aflatoxin B1 Federal Proceedings, 41
  5. Camhi M. Costa Rica’s Shark Fishery and Cartilage Industry. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Organizations/SSG/sharknews/sn8/shark8news9.htm (1996).
  6. Horsman MR, Alsner J, & Overgaard J (1998). The effect of shark cartilage extracts on the growth and metastatic spread of the SCCVII carcinoma. Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 37 (5), 441-5 PMID: 9831372
  7. Miller DR, Anderson GT, Stark JJ, Granick JL, & Richardson D (1998). Phase I/II trial of the safety and efficacy of shark cartilage in the treatment of advanced cancer. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 16 (11), 3649-55 PMID: 9817287
  8. Loprinzi CL, Levitt R, Barton DL, Sloan JA, Atherton PJ, Smith DJ, Dakhil SR, Moore DF Jr, Krook JE, Rowland KM Jr, Mazurczak MA, Berg AR, Kim GP, & North Central Cancer Treatment Group (2005). Evaluation of shark cartilage in patients with advanced cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial. Cancer, 104 (1), 176-82 PMID: 15912493
  9. Lu C, Lee JJ, Komaki R, Herbst RS, Feng L, Evans WK, Choy H, Desjardins P, Esparaz BT, Truong MT, Saxman S, Kelaghan J, Bleyer A, & Fisch MJ (2010). Chemoradiotherapy with or without AE-941 in stage III non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 102 (12), 859-65 PMID: 20505152
  10. Vickers, A (2004). Alternative cancer cures: “unproven” or “disproven”? CA: A Cancer Journal For Clinicians, 54, 110-118 DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.54.2.110
  11. Ostrander GK, Cheng KC, Wolf JC, & Wolfe MJ (2004). Shark cartilage, cancer and the growing threat of pseudoscience. Cancer research, 64 (23), 8485-91 PMID: 15574750
  12. Flajnik MF, & Rumfelt LL (2000). The immune system of cartilaginous fish. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol (249), 249-270