Taking Science Public

            As I was reading through the posted articles, two in particular caught my attention, because their topics were near and dear to my interests. I am interested in how the general population interacts with science, scientists, and how this perception can be shaped or warped. The articles posted on Vox and written by Julia Belluz took different angles at examining or negotiating the relationship between the lay and the lab. While I absolutely don’t deny the prevalence of irreproducibility in “science”, I’m not really ready to hop on the hype train like some others who seem happy to disregard the myriad advances which have been made by science despite it apparently being broken. One thing I liked from the articles was the frankness of the interviewee in the Why you can't always believe what you read in scientific journals piece. (S)he spoke candidly about the politics of science, specifically in his last comment, which was tangentially related to irreproducibility or “bad science” but actually highlighted one of the actual problems with science: it’s done by humans. This seems like a far more foundational or central issue, and a more interesting conversation to have. It’s not “peer review” or “good stats” (as someone who is good in lab and terrible at stats, I am herein making the assumption that someone who is as good at stats as I am in lab would find it just as easy to “massage” the data and obtain the answer they desire), it’s that we are prideful, ambitious, and defensive in perfectly normal, human levels.

            I honestly have no segue into what my next thoughts were, but I didn’t want to go on for too long about something that wasn’t really that related to the dialogue we’re trying to have. One thing I will note about Ms.Belluz (herself a decorated science journalist) is that she seems a little quick to redirect the attention away from the individuals who disseminate the majority of these falsehoods or exaggerated claims, the journalists themselves. While I don’t believe it is ethical to continue portraying science to the public as this infallible discipline with participants entirely unfazed by their own human emotions, I also think it is important to think about how we phrase and shape arguments out of what statistics or data we have. The example to which I alluded earlier is a clear instance of presentation dictating the takeaway. Belluz doesn’t say “while it is true that about 30% of cases where specific phrases were used are cases where doctors are using these terms, and it is sometimes unjustified. However, dwarfing the 30% of cases which pertained to doctors, 55% of cases pertained to journalists using these phrases.”, a short paragraph I could write in a manner that seems a little biased in favor of scientists. Instead she begins the paragraph by getting that 55% out in the open, then focuses the remaining paragraph elaborating on the smaller percentage of cases which are perpetrated by doctors, leaving readers with the notion of doctors who “medically overhyping”, not journalists. This is then of course laid to rest with a warning statement addressing the grave danger that is medical overhype. The order in which we present data, the careful phrasing we use, and the overall presentation of specific data all have a significant effect on the takeaway message a reader gets. One question I struggle with after reading some of the articles is: how can we have an honest discussion about the realities of science and how reliable or unreliable studies are, without creating a million tiny Jenny McCarthys? Is the nature of public debate and discussion nuanced enough to handle the realities of scientific research, many of which have been true for centuries? How can the largest proportion of cases, perpetrated by journalists, be policed? Should they be?

Scientific “Ultimatums”

The seemingly overwhelming problem with mass consumption of science is the idea that science can find the be-all and end-all of human problems. Science, in conjunction with engineering, can develop technologies to ease life. Science can develop pills to make us work better, run further, and think smarter. And, most importantly, science can cure all ailments in all people, and make death impossible. The general public, and even some scientists, lose perspective when faced with the most recent “miracle breakthrough” and, ignoring rationality and realism, conclude that yes!, finally!, this is the product that will change humankind as we know it! Journalists can only take some of the blame for this – they, like scientists, need to publish or perish. A majority of the blame, though, can be placed on the shoulders of those who chose what research should be funded. Buzzwords like “novel” and “exciting” are thrown around in grant applications as through no other adjectives exist, and it makes logical sense that journalists with minimal scientific training would follow the trend – if the scientists find these ideas exciting, they absolutely must be “transformative,” “groundbreaking,” and “revolutionary.”

Personally though, this medical overhype in scientific journals and newspapers is not terribly worrisome; as mentioned in an article by Julia Belluz, almost all of these “miracle” drugs are not available to the public. She mentions that the worst result of this practice is the creation of hope in the desperate, and while hope is important for healing and mental health, a loss of hope cannot hurt a patient or group of people to the degree that a non-FDA approved, pseudoscience “cure” can. Just yesterday, my mother – a highly trained operating room nurse - called me to ask me to research “MMS drops,” after being unable to find any information on the FDA website. Her friend’s husband, an injured, uninsured immigrant, was given these drops by a “friend” for some back pain a couple of weeks ago, and has been experiencing chest pain since taking them. For those of you that are unfamiliar, MMS, or miracle mineral supplement drops are a toxic solution of NaClO₂, loosely equivalent to dilute bleach. These drops have been falsely proclaimed as a cure for HIV, malaria, hepatitis, flu, common colds, autism, acne, cancer, and much, much more, without a single clinical trial. However, due to a few anecdotal reports and a book by Jim Humble, in conjunction with sale of the product as a “water purifier” to circumvent medical regulations, countless individuals have been throwing their money, hope, and health into a product that realistically causes renal failure, nausea, vomiting, and airway corrosion even at small doses. Countless products like this exist as unregulated “miracles,” and countless people buy into the anecdotal “evidence” in vain hopes for cures that science cannot yet provide.

Instead of focusing on the relatively harmless effects of the failure of scientifically backed – and publicly unattainable – products, the “medical” hype that should be vehemently and much more commonly disputed are products that, in the end, were made to make a profit off of the scientifically ignorant, without fear of consequences.

The New Miracle Cancer Drug... Potentially

The holy grail of biomedical research is a “miracle” cure for cancer. Not only would this discovery net the researcher a life changing amount of money and worldwide fame, but it would also extend the lives of the millions of patients who are diagnosed with cancer each year. In her article in Vox, Julia Belluz discusses the multitude of articles about new cancer treatments published with superlatives such as “miracle” or “game-changer” and how the majority of these treatments are not FDA approved. Additionally, many of these treatments do not even have human data to validate their praise.

My question is: Is it a good or bad thing for biomedical research for articles of this nature to be published so frequently with little concrete clinical evidence to back their claims?

Claiming that every cancer treatment that shows even the smallest potential for success is the next game changing, miracle drug could ultimately create public distrust of the scientific community. Over time, people will begin to question each article that they come across. They will wonder, after years of hearing of these treatments, why their loved ones are still dying of cancer. They will begin to think that the scientists behind these studies pulling the wool over their eyes in an effort to fill their own pockets with money. Ultimately, this could severely hamper the ability of the biomedical community to do research due to lack of public support and a subsequent decrease in funding.

On the other hand, if these articles on potential “miracle” drugs are not published, the public may lose interest in the research because they feel that no progress is being made. The lack of hype around cancer research if these articles were not published could also lead to public disinterest and an ultimate lack of funding for these studies that are making progress towards the goal of curing cancer but are not quite there.

What do we as scientist do to maintain interest in biomedical research without lying to general public?

We focus not on where the research is currently, but instead highlight where it has the potential to go. We generate hype by discussing hypothetical “miracle” cures. As long as the superlative descriptors are used with the caveat that the drugs they describe are still in development I feel that we can continue to drive public interest in biomedical research without making fraudulent claims.