At the risk of getting fire-bombed by PETA, let me describe Tool #1 this way: test tube goo and lab rats are not people. This seems pretty self-evident, doesn’t it? Yet you’ll be amazed (and infuriated) at how many breathless media reports of fabulous new discoveries don’t bother to explain whether the miracle in question worked for people, rats, or a glob of cells in a petri dish. This is the first and most fundamental tool for evaluating a news report, whether you’re reading about it in the USA Today or in a medical journal, and you should actively seek out this information. (In fairness, if you’re reading a medical or science journal article, it’ll be impossible to miss.)
Amazing Cancer Cure….for Rats
To understand just how important this factor is, consider this: fully 95% of new cancer drugs that looked oh-so-promising in test tubes or in lab rats fail by the clinical trial phase. And while other drugs do a little better (e.g., heart drugs fail at a “mere” 70% by phase III clinical trials), they still fail more than half the time. Read More
Case Study: Nanoparticles and DNA damage
While I was working on the previous post (introducing the you-are-not-goo tool), I ran across a textbook case study for Tool #1, and a reminder of how useful this one simple rule can be. ABC News (the Australian Broadcasting Company) online ran an article reporting on an experiment involving nano-sized metals (like the type commonly used in sunblocks and mineral makeup, but in this case involving metals used in artificial joints). The ABC headline, “More evidence nanoparticles damage DNA”, is worrying enough. And the outcome of the experiment, suggesting that nanoparticle metals can damage even cells they don’t directly touch, only reinforces that anxiety. Given that “DNA damage” is shorthand for “increased cancer risk”, and that nanoparticles are now widespread in the personal products market, what’s not to fear?
Remember these guys?
But as I continued to read the article, I noticed something. The descriptions of the experiment and findings mentioned only cells, or layers of cells, or tissues. All that talk of cell membranes but nary a mention of mice or men? It was a big red flag that this was investigational or exploratory research, and not a well-designed study on humans. In other words, the report was a perfect case for applying Tool #1.
So, I spent all of thirty seconds on Google, hoping that another service had picked up the story and furnished better analysis. And I was promptly rewarded! Read More »