This morning I spent a wonderful half hour discussing science reporting on CKUT's Free Radicals show in Montreal. Link to the .mp3 is below, for anyone interested. It's rough, not sound bites, and discussion-rich, which are just some of the reasons I'm falling a bit in love with community radio.
https://secure.ckut.ca//cgi-bin/ckut-grid.pl?action=showaudio&show=monday,11:30
Many thanks to Robyn Fadden for having me on her show, and to Dr. Eduardo Franco for taking the time to talk to me about epidemiology reporting and vaccines, the latter a topic which is large enough that I am hoping it gets its own show in the near future.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Woz
A few weeks ago I received notification of an event taking place at Concordia University. I immediately thought, "sweet!" and then promptly forgot to register for it. And so, after standing in the 'hopeful but unregistered' line for an hour while they let the responsible people in, I managed to get into the first half of a talk given by Steve Wozniak in Montreal this morning. He spoke for an hour or so about business, computers, and his own experiences with the genesis of Apple.
He responded to general audience questions about start ups, computers, and venture capital with general answers, but one in particular was interesting. He was asked how he, having been one of the original "architects" of the relationship between humans and computers, saw or hoped to see that same relationship evolving.
"I would ask we take a few steps back in the past and see that the human relationships get copied very well," said Wozniak. He stressed that we needed to make sure that technology works the way humans do, and not to force humans to work the way technology does.
I found this interesting because it led me to ask, to what extent have we started out, with computers, with that relationship in mind, and to what extent should we? And considering how the computer has changed just about everything about how we go about life, to what extent is the relationship reciprocal?
Tangentially, I also thought about Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux et al., and how the proponents (and engineers) of each would value the relative weight of user-friendly ease. But that's a whole other debate.
Elsewhere in his talk, Wozniak spoke against the myth that computers make kids antisocial, saying that the computer led the early-adopting kids to social interaction, news and information, not extreme isolation as was often the perception. He also advised young entrepreneurs to have as much of a prototype as possible before involving venture capitalists, to ensure greater share and control in the future. He said, "Don't try to raise money with just an idea."
He responded to general audience questions about start ups, computers, and venture capital with general answers, but one in particular was interesting. He was asked how he, having been one of the original "architects" of the relationship between humans and computers, saw or hoped to see that same relationship evolving.
"I would ask we take a few steps back in the past and see that the human relationships get copied very well," said Wozniak. He stressed that we needed to make sure that technology works the way humans do, and not to force humans to work the way technology does.
I found this interesting because it led me to ask, to what extent have we started out, with computers, with that relationship in mind, and to what extent should we? And considering how the computer has changed just about everything about how we go about life, to what extent is the relationship reciprocal?
Tangentially, I also thought about Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux et al., and how the proponents (and engineers) of each would value the relative weight of user-friendly ease. But that's a whole other debate.
Elsewhere in his talk, Wozniak spoke against the myth that computers make kids antisocial, saying that the computer led the early-adopting kids to social interaction, news and information, not extreme isolation as was often the perception. He also advised young entrepreneurs to have as much of a prototype as possible before involving venture capitalists, to ensure greater share and control in the future. He said, "Don't try to raise money with just an idea."
Friday, April 24, 2009
The Boy Who Cried Cure
(Note: The below is not meant to work through the details of cancer research today, but more with how the public views cancer. Nor is any impunity meant to the writers of the articles I reference.
I'm currently working on a project to elucidate how the public views health journalism, particularly with regard to cancer. My findings so far have been that the public a) doesn't go out of their way to read about cancer unless they or a close relative actually have cancer, because b) every day a new cancer breakthrough or etiological link is publicized, and yet people still keep getting and dying of cancer.
One would almost advocate just shutting up until we actually have a cure, if not for the fact that breakthroughs drive funding, and group that doesn't trumpet its findings may find itself out of a grant; and the public, although it may be sick of knowing, does have a right to know. Also, the idea of a "cure" may not even be clear, with words like prevention, early detection, remission, etc. If we can cure 95% of one type of cancer, can we say we have a cure for that cancer, if it involves catching it early instead of an administered drug?
We also need to break down some of the "cancer link" headlines, another sub-area of cancer research that is starting to set the public head spinning. Take the various links between breast cancer, hormone replacement therapy, the Pill, babies, etc. A woman setting out to not get breast cancer has a remarkable amount of sleuthing to do to discover how best to hedge her bets over the 30 reproductively active years of her life.
There have been remarkable breakthroughs that have changed the course of the disease. The survival rate for some cancers (like non-Hodgkins Lymphomas) is very good, if found early; people are starting to focus on early detection; we've finally got across the knowledge that smoking does, in fact, cause lung cancer; and various industries are realizing it's cheaper to protect workers and public from toxins than it is to pay health benefits. We've also made chemotherapy a slightly less horrible experience, with anti-nausea drugs and the like. And slowly, these breakthroughs do add up to a slow, steady progress towards fending off cancer. And research progress like this (http://dalnews.dal.ca/2009/04/08/cancer.html) is announced regularly. But take a look at some of the public comments at the bottom of the above article.
In my perception, the public is starting to notice how much money has been spent since the War on Cancer was declared by Nixon, and seeing very little to show. They don't want life made easier for chemotherapy patients in lieu of a cure. The bar has been raised by the sheer amount of money and effort put in versus the output. I don't think the public will fully lose its cancer cynicism until we have an honest-to-goodness cure. And while there is much to be said for better science journalism to soften some of the cynicism through understanding of the complexity and tenacity of the disease, we have to remember that a lot of funding comes from non-profit and government organizations that do come back to public funds, and the goodwill of the public both through giving and policy making may begin to run dry if the trumpeting of every "breakthrough" continues to fall short of their bar.
We also have to remember that reporting at the lab stage is a far cry from reporting at the patient-ready stage, and that using the umbrella term "cancer" is setting ourselves up for a fall. Someone who expects "cancer" to be cured is going to have to wait a lot longer than, say, someone who expects to have leukemia cured.
Some good reads relating to the above:
http://www.openmedicine.ca/ (an open-source medical journal by researchers trying to make medical research more publicly accessible)
http://dalnews.dal.ca/2009/04/08/cancer.html
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/17-01/ff_cancer
The Secret History of the War on Cancer by Devra Davis
I'm currently working on a project to elucidate how the public views health journalism, particularly with regard to cancer. My findings so far have been that the public a) doesn't go out of their way to read about cancer unless they or a close relative actually have cancer, because b) every day a new cancer breakthrough or etiological link is publicized, and yet people still keep getting and dying of cancer.
One would almost advocate just shutting up until we actually have a cure, if not for the fact that breakthroughs drive funding, and group that doesn't trumpet its findings may find itself out of a grant; and the public, although it may be sick of knowing, does have a right to know. Also, the idea of a "cure" may not even be clear, with words like prevention, early detection, remission, etc. If we can cure 95% of one type of cancer, can we say we have a cure for that cancer, if it involves catching it early instead of an administered drug?
We also need to break down some of the "cancer link" headlines, another sub-area of cancer research that is starting to set the public head spinning. Take the various links between breast cancer, hormone replacement therapy, the Pill, babies, etc. A woman setting out to not get breast cancer has a remarkable amount of sleuthing to do to discover how best to hedge her bets over the 30 reproductively active years of her life.
There have been remarkable breakthroughs that have changed the course of the disease. The survival rate for some cancers (like non-Hodgkins Lymphomas) is very good, if found early; people are starting to focus on early detection; we've finally got across the knowledge that smoking does, in fact, cause lung cancer; and various industries are realizing it's cheaper to protect workers and public from toxins than it is to pay health benefits. We've also made chemotherapy a slightly less horrible experience, with anti-nausea drugs and the like. And slowly, these breakthroughs do add up to a slow, steady progress towards fending off cancer. And research progress like this (http://dalnews.dal.ca/2009/04/08/cancer.html) is announced regularly. But take a look at some of the public comments at the bottom of the above article.
In my perception, the public is starting to notice how much money has been spent since the War on Cancer was declared by Nixon, and seeing very little to show. They don't want life made easier for chemotherapy patients in lieu of a cure. The bar has been raised by the sheer amount of money and effort put in versus the output. I don't think the public will fully lose its cancer cynicism until we have an honest-to-goodness cure. And while there is much to be said for better science journalism to soften some of the cynicism through understanding of the complexity and tenacity of the disease, we have to remember that a lot of funding comes from non-profit and government organizations that do come back to public funds, and the goodwill of the public both through giving and policy making may begin to run dry if the trumpeting of every "breakthrough" continues to fall short of their bar.
We also have to remember that reporting at the lab stage is a far cry from reporting at the patient-ready stage, and that using the umbrella term "cancer" is setting ourselves up for a fall. Someone who expects "cancer" to be cured is going to have to wait a lot longer than, say, someone who expects to have leukemia cured.
Some good reads relating to the above:
http://www.openmedicine.ca/ (an open-source medical journal by researchers trying to make medical research more publicly accessible)
http://dalnews.dal.ca/2009/04/08/cancer.html
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/17-01/ff_cancer
The Secret History of the War on Cancer by Devra Davis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)