I started to wonder if something funky was going on when multiple people in my family got cancer around the same time. In 1990, my older sister Rebecca was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, when she was 21 and I was 14. While she was undergoing rigorous chemo, my mum was diagnosed with breast cancer.

Rebecca passed away in 1994 and then, a couple of years after that, my dad got bowel cancer. While he was undergoing treatment, my mum got cancer in her other breast. She survived that, but then she was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in 2009. She had major surgery, but it came back and she died six weeks later.

In 2020, my other sister was diagnosed with fast-growing triple-negative breast cancer and I thought, oh my god, there鈥檚 something going on here. My sister was tested for the BRCA mutations, variants of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that increase breast cancer risk, and it came back negative.

So then she was tested for a different mutation in a gene called TP53, which is much rarer but even worse. Women with this mutation have , with a 50 per cent chance before the age of 30. It鈥檚 called Li-Fraumeni syndrome and it basically means your TP53 gene, which normally functions as a cancer-suppressing gene, is a dud.

When my sister was offered the test, I was like: 鈥淲hat鈥檚 Li-Fraumeni syndrome?鈥� It鈥檚 not something you ever hear about. The test came back positive and she was extremely distraught. Since it can run in families, I was then offered the test too. I decided to do it because I didn鈥檛 want my sister to go through this journey on her own.

I had the test in 2022, when I was 47, and it came back positive. I actually felt at peace with it, which a lot of people find surprising, but it was because I finally felt like I had answers for all the troubles my family has been through. It鈥檚 a personal thing, though 鈥� my brother, for example, has chosen not to get tested.

Free newsletter

Sign up to Health Check

Sign up to newsletter

After getting the diagnosis, my life changed forever. When you have Li-Fraumeni syndrome, there isn鈥檛 an hour where you don鈥檛 think about it. It鈥檚 always on your mind. Within months of finding out I had the gene, I had a double mastectomy as a preventative measure. They found two ductal carcinomas in situ, early forms of cancer, in my left breast after it was removed.

I live in Sydney, so I was able to join an that is investigating annual whole-body MRI as a way to spot tumours in any location in people with mutations in TP53 or other genes that can cause cancer in multiple organs. I had my first one in 2022 and I was very nervous because I didn鈥檛 know if they鈥檇 find anything. It was normal, but in the second year, they found a 9-millimetre meningioma 鈥� a tumour in the meninges, the layers of tissue covering the brain. Fortunately, it鈥檚 benign, but I was very freaked out about it. It was a bit of a gamechanger for me.

I have my annual whole-body MRI every November and my 鈥渟canxiety鈥� starts building from around July. I start thinking, is this going to be the year when everything changes? But being part of the study also gives me a sense of reassurance, because it鈥檚 designed to pick up cancers at an early stage when they are hopefully still treatable. My sister, who survived her breast cancer, now has annual MRIs too.

In addition to whole-body MRI, I have yearly skin checks with a dermatologist and an annual blood test. Every two years, I also have an endoscopy and colonoscopy. They鈥檝e found polyps, abnormal cell growths that can develop into cancer, in my bowel, which were removed, plus some atypical cells in my oesophagus, which they鈥檙e keeping an eye on. I鈥檓 also on constant alert for anything unusual in my body. I鈥檒l have a sore shoulder and get nervous because I鈥檒l wonder, is this going to be something?

My geneticist thinks my mum might have had a de novo mutation, a mutation that arises spontaneously in an individual rather than being inherited, in her TP53 gene, which was passed down to me and my sisters. We don鈥檛 have children, so there isn鈥檛 a risk of us passing it on further.

My partner has been really supportive. After I found out I had the syndrome, he said: 鈥淵ou鈥檝e just got to do what you鈥檝e got to do.鈥� When I had my double mastectomy, I didn鈥檛 go down the path of having a breast reconstruction and I was worried I looked like a freak, but he said: 鈥淣ot at all. Your scars tell your battle.鈥�

I try to stay positive because I figure that everyone has something they鈥檙e dealing with, be it a chronic disease or an injury or depression, and this is just my thing to bear. My sister-in-law, for example, recently had a stroke. We all have our things 鈥� some are visible and some are not 鈥� so we need to be compassionate towards each other. Life isn鈥檛 a white picket fence.

As told to Alice Klein

罢丑别听New 女生小视频 Book Club聽has been reading a popular-science classic in June: Richard Dawkins鈥檚聽, which celebrates its 50^th聽anniversary this year.

I hadn鈥檛 previously read this one 鈥� it had always intimidated me (an English graduate). But my colleague Rowan Hooper, a behavioural ecologist as well as our podcast editor, reread it to see how it holds up today and concluded it pretty much did. He had a few issues with the biology and said it 鈥渇eels its age鈥� 鈥� Dawkins himself admits to 鈥渟exist pronouns鈥� in a 1989 preface 鈥� but Rowan found that 鈥渢he core message remains relevant not just because genes being selfish is a brilliant meme (a term Dawkins coins at the end of the book), but because it is such a powerful way to understand how evolution operates: the metaphor makes us think as if genes behave selfishly鈥�.

Read an extract from The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

Dive into the opening of The Selfish Gene's first chapter 'Why are people?', the New 女生小视频 Book Club鈥檚 read for June to mark 50 years since the popular science classic was first published

It was time to gird my loins and embark on a book I鈥檝e always been a bit embarrassed for omitting. I have to admit to being a little exhausted at first: there was preface after preface in my edition, in which Dawkins was arguing with all sorts of people about how the book had been received. This was somewhat confusing, given I hadn鈥檛 鈥� yet 鈥� 聽read it. I should have skipped straight to the first chapter.

Once I got into it, though, I found myself (mostly) carried along swimmingly by Dawkins鈥檚 writing. He certainly has a knack for a good metaphor 鈥� I particularly liked the idea of our bodies as 鈥渟urvival machines鈥� for genes. Without having studied any biology after the age of 16, I got my head around his central point: that natural selection works because genes, or copies of them (replicators, as he calls them), are out to survive, building the optimal bodies (or survival machines) in order to do so.

I did find his tone a little irascible and hectoring at times. It was like he was having conversations with various colleagues/rivals about his points, rather than the general reader. For example, talking about how 鈥渙ne gene may be regarded as a unit that survives through a large number of successive individual bodies鈥�, he writes that 鈥渋t is an argument that some of my most respected colleagues obstinately refuse to agree with, so you must forgive me if I seem to labour it!鈥�. We鈥檙e also firmly told about the correct pronunciation of 鈥渁lgae鈥� (a hard 鈥済鈥�, people). There鈥檚 a lot of that sort of thing, but I finished feeling pleased to have got my head (mostly) around his argument.

Book club members were less impressed 鈥� this is, I think, the book that has received the most negative comments of any we鈥檝e read, with a handful of members deciding not to join us in reading it at all, as they disagreed with some of Dawkins鈥檚 personal views. (I share the perspective of member pwhipp, who wrote on our channel: 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think we should reject serious scientific writing simply because the author is combative, controversial, or personally irritating. If we did that consistently, the shelves would become very thin indeed.鈥�) Pwhipp, by the way, called The Selfish Gene 鈥渁n important and very well-written book, whatever one thinks of Dawkins鈥� public persona or his outspoken atheism鈥�.

Free newsletter

Sign up to Book Club

Sign up to newsletter

Pwhipp was in the minority, however. Alan P was one re-reader who felt 鈥渦nderwhelmed鈥� by The Selfish Gene. 鈥淭he text is (as he admits himself but doesn鈥檛 change) sexist throughout. It鈥檚 not just the assumption of male pronouns for general statements, but there are some comments in the end notes and the text of the book itself that even for the eighties are questionable,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淭he tone is argumentative 鈥� sometimes I鈥檓 not clear that it isn鈥檛 argument for its own sake 鈥� but it鈥檚 definitely jarring. The endless footnotes contradicting the text are really difficult to follow. If the science has changed then the text of the book needs to change as well. So it may be that it was a masterly summary of the known science in its day 鈥� but now it鈥檚 a bad tempered, difficult to follow, mess.鈥�

Alan did enjoy the new chapter 鈥淣ice guys finish first鈥�, added to later editions: 鈥淚 was always of the opinion that genes don鈥檛 make ethics so it鈥檚 nice to have the idea that even if genetic determinism was a thing, that cooperation is a successful strategy in the wild.鈥�

The Selfish Gene at 50: Why Dawkins鈥檚 evolution classic still holds up

When Richard Dawkins鈥檚 first blockbuster book was published half a century ago, few genes had ever been sequenced or studied in detail. Yet the book鈥檚 gene-centred view of evolution still has much to teach us in today鈥檚 genetic age

Dee55, meanwhile, first read The Selfish Gene back in the early 80s and found it 鈥渁n absolute revelation鈥� at the time. Going back to it was 鈥渋nteresting鈥�, but, as a humanities graduate, Dee55 found 鈥渟pecific challenges in following some of the arguments鈥�. 鈥淚 enjoyed the Chapter 5 stuff on the ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) as a fun ride, but I think I need to reread it before continuing. I am very aware that I am just not in a position to assess RD鈥檚 ideas in the context of other evolutionary biology thinking,鈥� Dee55 wrote.

Rowan took a deeper dive into the book in a longer piece for New 女生小视频, speaking to biologists about its message and what still stands today. Taking into account developments in the field that have happened over the past 50 years, Rowan wrote that 鈥渁ll the evolutionary biologists I spoke to for this piece struggled to find major problems with The Selfish Gene鈥�. There was one exception: the idea of the meme, which, despite its memetic proliferation today, 鈥渄oesn鈥檛 hold up鈥�, he was told.

Overall, then, a thorny choice: this particular piece of popular science was notedly unpopular for the New 女生小视频 Book Club.

When you make a purchase via the links on this page, we receive a commission.