Sex differences in human health and disease can range from undetectable to profound. Differences in brain tumor rates and outcome are evident in males and females throughout the world and regardless of age. These observations indicate that fundamental aspects of sex determination can impact the biology of brain tumors. It is likely that optimal personalized approaches to the treatment of male and female brain tumor patients will require recognizing and understanding the ways in which the biology of their tumors can differ. It is our view that sex-specific approaches to brain tumor screening and care will be enhanced by rigorously documenting differences in brain tumor rates and outcomes in males and females, and understanding the developmental and evolutionary origins of sex differences. Here we offer such an integrative perspective on brain tumors. It is our intent to encourage the consideration of sex differences in clinical and basic scientific investigations.

November 2009's announcement of the USPSTF's recommendations for screening for breast cancer raised a firestorm of objections. Chief among them were that the panel had insufficiently valued patients' lives or allowed cost considerations to influence recommendations. The publicity about the recommendations, however, often either simplified the actual content of the recommendations or bypassed significant methodological issues, which a philosophical examination of both the science behind screening recommendations and their import reveals. In this article, I discuss two of the leading ethical considerations at issue in screening recommendations: respect for patient autonomy and beneficence and then turn to the most significant methodological issues raised by cancer screening: the potential biases that may infect a trial of screening effectiveness, the problem of base rates in communicating risk, and the trade-offs involved in a judgment of screening effectiveness. These issues reach more broadly, into the use of "evidence-based" medicine generally, and have important implications for informed consent.

Fisher's 'fundamental theorem of natural selection' is notoriously abstract, and, no less notoriously, many take it to be false. In this paper, I explicate the theorem, examine the role that it played in Fisher's general project for biology, and analyze why it was so very fundamental for Fisher. I defend and Lessard (1997) in the view that the theorem is in fact a true theorem if, as Fisher claimed, 'the terms employed' are 'used strictly as defined' (1930, p. 38). Finally, I explain the role that projects such as Fisher's play in the progress of scientific inquiry.

One of the major developments in cancer research in recent years has been the construction of models that treat cancer as a cellular population subject to natural selection. We expand on this idea, drawing upon multilevel selection theory. Cancer is best understood in our view from a multilevel perspective, as both a byproduct of selection at other levels of organization, and as subject to selection (and drift) at several levels of organization. Cancer is a by-product in two senses. First, cancer cells co-opt signaling pathways that are otherwise adaptive at the organismic level. Second, cancer is also a by-product of features distinctive to the metazoan lineage: cellular plasticity and modularity. Applying the multilevel perspective in this way permits one to explain transitions in complexity and individuality in cancer progression. Our argument is a reply to Germain's (2012) scepticism towards the explanatory relevance of natural selection for cancer. The extent to which cancer fulfills the conditions for being a paradigmatic Darwinian population depends on the scale of analysis, and the details of the purported selective scenario. Taking a multilevel perspective clarifies some of the complexities surrounding how to best understand the relevance of evolutionary thinking in cancer progression. Keywords Cancer Á Multilevel selection Á Darwinian populations Á Tumors Á By-product of selection ''Through failure we understand design.'' Frank, 2007.

No abstract