Last weekend I met an actual, real-life cancer researcher, at an NBCC ProjectLEAD workshop. She was smart, and pretty, and earnest — sort of how you imagine cancer researchers when you’re sitting there with your chemo I.V. running and wondering who dreamed up that wonderful-wretched drug. In the course of conversation, I asked her about Tykerb (generic name: lapatinib), a new “targeted” biologic chemotherapy drug. And when she mentioned that researchers originally had high hopes that it would cause few if any side effects, I snorted.
I think I offended her, for which I’m truly sorry. But if I had a nickel for every fabulous new targeted, biologic, super-earth-shattering drug that was supposed to zero-in on cancer cells with minimal side-effects….well, you know the rest.
Let’s just say that the influence of desperate hope, fervent desire, and even ego is often too much for our poor, unappreciated critical faculties, even if you have MD, PhD, or Uber-Mensa on your name tag. And how much more so for we mere mortals?
All the more reason for a handy tool kit!
The nice folks at NBCC have created the ultimate set of tools for clear-eyed analysis of health news, whether you’re reading up on a cancer breakthrough or the latest body fat-melting miracle. The tool set is series of analytic questions you should ask of any piece of health reporting, along with a enough (just a little) background in science research to understand what the questions are getting at. I’ll be covering it in a series of posts over the next two weeks, and I only ask that If you find it readable, eye-opening, or useful, pass it along!
First, an attitude adjustment: whenever you read or hear of a fabulous new cure or terrifying new health risk, ask yourself “What’s this person selling me?” Every last reporter, announcer, and scientist out there is selling you something. Yes, even the scientists. Every single news story or magazine article is selling you a version of the truth, and every last medical research article is doing the same. I don’t care if you read it in the National Enquirer or the New England Journal of Medicine, you should have that question in mind. Your job is to figure out what they’re selling and whether you buy it.
I’m sure you know this already, and apply it most of the time. But do you really apply it when you read about promising new medicines or scary new health risks? Our culture teaches us to defer to doctors and scientists, and we often extend that deference to science reporting. Worse, we reinforce it in ourselves when we read of something that we really, really want to be true, or something that scares the pants off of us. In both cases, we rationalize our emotional reaction by reinforcing that deference (It’s coming from Dr. Gupta after all, and he wouldn’t lie, or worse: There were testimonials!).
Lieutenant Spock
Instead, you need to channel your inner Spock (as in Lieutenant Spock, the science officer from Star Trek; not Dr. Spock, who was also selling a version of reality). Spock had the ultimate tool set, and he didn’t hesitate to use it. The next time you feel that surge of can-it-really-be-true elation, or that gut-squashing I-could-be-next fear, you need to whack it with a hammer from your tool set. Only if it survives your tool set should you allow yourself the luxury of big emotional swings. After all, they take a lot of energy that could be better spent on…well…just about anything.
Next up, Tool #1, the most fundamental tool of ‘em all for analyzing health-related news: the You Are Not Goo rule.
A new wonder drug?! Before you say “gimme”, whack it with a hammer
Last weekend I met an actual, real-life cancer researcher, at an NBCC ProjectLEAD workshop. She was smart, and pretty, and earnest — sort of how you imagine cancer researchers when you’re sitting there with your chemo I.V. running and wondering who dreamed up that wonderful-wretched drug. In the course of conversation, I asked her about Tykerb (generic name: lapatinib), a new “targeted” biologic chemotherapy drug. And when she mentioned that researchers originally had high hopes that it would cause few if any side effects, I snorted.
I think I offended her, for which I’m truly sorry. But if I had a nickel for every fabulous new targeted, biologic, super-earth-shattering drug that was supposed to zero-in on cancer cells with minimal side-effects….well, you know the rest.
Let’s just say that the influence of desperate hope, fervent desire, and even ego is often too much for our poor, unappreciated critical faculties, even if you have MD, PhD, or Uber-Mensa on your name tag. And how much more so for we mere mortals?
All the more reason for a handy tool kit!
The nice folks at NBCC have created the ultimate set of tools for clear-eyed analysis of health news, whether you’re reading up on a cancer breakthrough or the latest body fat-melting miracle. The tool set is series of analytic questions you should ask of any piece of health reporting, along with a enough (just a little) background in science research to understand what the questions are getting at. I’ll be covering it in a series of posts over the next two weeks, and I only ask that If you find it readable, eye-opening, or useful, pass it along!
First, an attitude adjustment: whenever you read or hear of a fabulous new cure or terrifying new health risk, ask yourself “What’s this person selling me?” Every last reporter, announcer, and scientist out there is selling you something. Yes, even the scientists. Every single news story or magazine article is selling you a version of the truth, and every last medical research article is doing the same. I don’t care if you read it in the National Enquirer or the New England Journal of Medicine, you should have that question in mind. Your job is to figure out what they’re selling and whether you buy it.
I’m sure you know this already, and apply it most of the time. But do you really apply it when you read about promising new medicines or scary new health risks? Our culture teaches us to defer to doctors and scientists, and we often extend that deference to science reporting. Worse, we reinforce it in ourselves when we read of something that we really, really want to be true, or something that scares the pants off of us. In both cases, we rationalize our emotional reaction by reinforcing that deference (It’s coming from Dr. Gupta after all, and he wouldn’t lie, or worse: There were testimonials!).
Lieutenant Spock
Instead, you need to channel your inner Spock (as in Lieutenant Spock, the science officer from Star Trek; not Dr. Spock, who was also selling a version of reality). Spock had the ultimate tool set, and he didn’t hesitate to use it. The next time you feel that surge of can-it-really-be-true elation, or that gut-squashing I-could-be-next fear, you need to whack it with a hammer from your tool set. Only if it survives your tool set should you allow yourself the luxury of big emotional swings. After all, they take a lot of energy that could be better spent on…well…just about anything.
Next up, Tool #1, the most fundamental tool of ‘em all for analyzing health-related news: the You Are Not Goo rule.