I don't think it's scientific to discuss cancer with respect to gene's. I don't think any one knows what they are talking about. The whole idea of looking into genetics without first discussing the really observable components of disease such as the mechanisms of the anatomy, the endocrine system, the nervous system, is beyond my idea of being "scientific". In fact, in my research there seems to be such a thing as endoneurologists or neuroendocrinologists. I can't do the research myself. I depend on people who are expert in this.
To focus on one form of cancer, breast cancer. Very few doctors inform females that there are 3 hormones involved: estrogen, progesteron, testosteron. How can science administer any of these hormones without first testing the individual for measurements of these hormones? In real life that is what happened to me, because of blind faith in the genome project. While I can use my own DNA to help me, because it's me that I'm observing, the results of others is not my concern. If the average volunteer for research is not measured for these hormones in research, then what does it matter about genes?
OTOH, if research gathers statistics about these measurements and then applies genetics, and distributes this information to the patient, then chemistry and genetics may be useful.
™ Version 4.2