This is a classic example of the reality distortion field that efficiently separates science journalism from science.
The article title: "A virus that kills cancer: the cure that's waiting in the cold".
The researcher's explanation: "Our results are only in the lab so far, not in humans, and many treatments that work in the lab can turn out to be not so effective in humans."
To the uninitiated, "only in the lab" means in vitro (from the Latin "in glass", meaning in a test tube or Petri dish), not in any living creature, and certainly not a human being.
This means that the "virus that kills cancer" hasn't ever been called on to kill cancer in a person suffering from cancer. Just saying.
There is nothing so tempting to an unscrupulous science journalist as marrying the words "cancer" and "cure" in an article title. To do this, they often turn their back on reality, as in this case.
The research may deserve support, but sleazy journalism like this can only hinder the work, and science.
gained no comments (although more upvotes than this submission so far) and I see that today's submission has a no-op # character at the end of the URL, which is considered bad form for a resubmission. I did some looking up of other sources on the profiled researcher and on the general issue of research related to adenoviruses and cancer yesterday when the first submission came in. I liked the article and its overall tone more than (apparently) some of today's commenters liked it, but didn't upvote it because it is too preliminary--wild speculation about cancer cures happens every day. The particular researcher profiled in the article (who seems cautious and sensible, as quoted by the reporter here) is obscure. The research on adenoviruses and cancer is vast, going on in many laboratories in many parts of the world, and so far has been disappointing in its results. This is too early for front-page news here.
As I typically do, here I once again recommend the article "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"
by Peter Norvig, Google's director of research. Every day on Hacker News we see news articles submitted announcing a "cure" for this or that dreaded disease. Before believing such eagerly awaited stories, check out their research base and find out if other researchers have replicated and verified the same research results.
The author appeals to millionaires to fund this promising research which drug companies won't invest in because it can't be patented due to previous publication. But can a kickstarter guru help get this off the ground?
I'm just wondering what "direct" reward can be given in exchange for a donation. While most of us see the benefit of such a drug to the "human race" I really think the success of kickstarter is due to its premise that your donation is reciprocated by the recipient.
With that said, wow, this drug 'sounds' extremely promising, and I hope to everything holy that it can do the miracles it advertises.
> I'm just wondering what "direct" reward can be given in exchange for a donation.
The majority of true science proceeds without thought of compensation, except in the sense that science advances and humanity benefits. Such is true in this case.
Comments
This is a classic example of the reality distortion field that efficiently separates science journalism from science.
The article title: "A virus that kills cancer: the cure that's waiting in the cold".
The researcher's explanation: "Our results are only in the lab so far, not in humans, and many treatments that work in the lab can turn out to be not so effective in humans."
To the uninitiated, "only in the lab" means in vitro (from the Latin "in glass", meaning in a test tube or Petri dish), not in any living creature, and certainly not a human being.
This means that the "virus that kills cancer" hasn't ever been called on to kill cancer in a person suffering from cancer. Just saying.
There is nothing so tempting to an unscrupulous science journalist as marrying the words "cancer" and "cure" in an article title. To do this, they often turn their back on reality, as in this case.
The research may deserve support, but sleazy journalism like this can only hinder the work, and science.
Yesterday's submission
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4463519
gained no comments (although more upvotes than this submission so far) and I see that today's submission has a no-op # character at the end of the URL, which is considered bad form for a resubmission. I did some looking up of other sources on the profiled researcher and on the general issue of research related to adenoviruses and cancer yesterday when the first submission came in. I liked the article and its overall tone more than (apparently) some of today's commenters liked it, but didn't upvote it because it is too preliminary--wild speculation about cancer cures happens every day. The particular researcher profiled in the article (who seems cautious and sensible, as quoted by the reporter here) is obscure. The research on adenoviruses and cancer is vast, going on in many laboratories in many parts of the world, and so far has been disappointing in its results. This is too early for front-page news here.
As I typically do, here I once again recommend the article "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"
http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
by Peter Norvig, Google's director of research. Every day on Hacker News we see news articles submitted announcing a "cure" for this or that dreaded disease. Before believing such eagerly awaited stories, check out their research base and find out if other researchers have replicated and verified the same research results.
Sorry about the # no-op. Either my browser or the source did that and I didn't notice.
The author appeals to millionaires to fund this promising research which drug companies won't invest in because it can't be patented due to previous publication. But can a kickstarter guru help get this off the ground?
I love the idea of a kickstarter!
I'm just wondering what "direct" reward can be given in exchange for a donation. While most of us see the benefit of such a drug to the "human race" I really think the success of kickstarter is due to its premise that your donation is reciprocated by the recipient.
With that said, wow, this drug 'sounds' extremely promising, and I hope to everything holy that it can do the miracles it advertises.
> I'm just wondering what "direct" reward can be given in exchange for a donation.
The majority of true science proceeds without thought of compensation, except in the sense that science advances and humanity benefits. Such is true in this case.