Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday October 18 2016, @09:06PM   Printer-friendly

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has released another cancer progress report/wish list:

Vice President Joe Biden today released his vision for doubling progress against cancer over 5 years. It includes numerous policy recommendations and a laundry list of projects by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and other federal agencies that would require additional funding. Biden and his wife, Jill, have met with thousands of experts and patient advocates, they explain in a 17-page strategic plan submitted to President Barack Obama, who asked Biden in January to lead the effort. "We sought to better understand and break down the silos and stovepipes that prevent sharing of information and impede advances in cancer research and treatment, while building a focused and coordinated effort at home and abroad," they explain.

The Bidens' wish list ranges from giving patients more control over their medical data to launching "a national conversation" about cancer drug pricing. They also want to see more high-risk research funding at NCI and changes to the institute's intramural research program to focus more on emerging science and major public health challenges.

An accompanying 29-page report from Biden's federal moonshot task force lists what agencies have done so far and their plans to address five strategic goals. The first goal, "catalyze new scientific breakthroughs," contains several items that "align with" the 10 research areas recommended last month by an NCI blue ribbon panel, the report says. For example, it describes Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to develop new imaging technologies for detecting early molecular changes in cells that may lead to cancer.

The Cancer Moonshot is part of the War on Cancer:

The mission of this Cancer Moonshot is not to start another war on cancer, but to win the one President Nixon declared in 1971. At that time, we didn't have the army organized, didn't have the military intelligence to know the enemy well, and therefore didn't have the comprehensive strategy needed to launch a successful attack—now we do. Because of the progress over the last 45 years we have an army of researchers and oncologists, the powerful technologies and weapons, and immense public support and commitment to action.

Related:
Biomedicine Facing a Worse Replication Crisis Than the One Plaguing Psychology
The White House Announces $121 Million Microbiome Initiative
"Cancer Moonshot" Releases Blue Ribbon Panel Report
Microsoft to "Solve the Problem of Cancer" Within Ten Years - Scientists are Skeptical


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday October 18 2016, @11:14PM

    by Dunbal (3515) on Tuesday October 18 2016, @11:14PM (#415901)

    Throw away science let's all work on anecdotal evidence.

    Your "diet" works perfectly well for you because you're relatively healthy. Thus you are suffering from a bad case of selection bias. Unfortunately there are people in this world who are not healthy through no fault of their own. They need medication on top of the steps you describe to even hope to achieve a "normal" life.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18 2016, @11:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18 2016, @11:34PM (#415913)

    Throw away science let's all work on anecdotal evidence.

    I'm not the original anon, but want to point out that NHST is pseudoscience not science (disproving a default null hypothesis rather than your hypothesis). It basically allows you to "prove" or "discover" whatever you want. NHST is what has been used by medical researchers for the last few decades, and lead to the 10-30% replication rate (which doesn't even address misinterpreted results...). I would agree with anon that anecdotes and common sense are much better than what is currently being called medical research.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Dunbal on Tuesday October 18 2016, @11:58PM

      by Dunbal (3515) on Tuesday October 18 2016, @11:58PM (#415925)

      I won't argue that point. The point I was trying to make is that most people are relatively healthy, somewhere around the center of the bell curve. As a physician myself I've seen what lies on either extreme of the curve - it's what I deal with every day. Telling THOSE people who through unfortunate genetics or unhappy accident have to lead a deficient life that they would have stayed healthy had they followed OP's recommendations is tantamount to a slap in the face. I think we've moved past the ancient belief that illness is caused by evil spirits and demons, and we also need to move past believing that illness is some sort of punishment. There are people who can smoke their whole lives and NOT get cancer or cardiovascular disease, for instance. However I'm not willing to put my reputation on the line and tell people not to worry about their smoking - because most people DO get sick from it. Exercise and diet is only PART of the answer. Another part lies within the individual organism. And yet another is just chance.

      However there are many cases where drugs DO help those who are sick. I'll admit that not all drugs are helpful, and I will even go as far as to say that pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in skewing their results or outright lying and cheating - some have already been caught. However as a physician dealing with the sick it's not really my place to abandon all those sick people and dedicate all my resources to actually figure out if the snake oil I'm taught about actually works as advertised. That's a whole different career path. As long as I see patients claiming to feel better with treatment, I will take them at their word and continue to prescribe that treatment to others. At the end of the day, even the placebo effect is real.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 19 2016, @04:06PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 19 2016, @04:06PM (#416189) Journal
      You aren't speaking of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST), you're speaking of abuse of generic significance testing. Run enough experiments and you'll come across something weird to significance p > N) whether or not you use the null hypothesis approach or not. Any tools you use to clean up that crap (say such as Bayesian statistics on your entire experiment set rather than cherrypicking the publishable results) will work on NHST just as well.

      NHST has its place, particular with a complex system (such as the human body) for which you don't have an adequate model. You can shotgun a huge bunch of parameters to find correlations that reveal viable models of the system. But to successfully do so, you need to realize that most such correlations will be spurious and have a reliable way to rule out those spurious correlations.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:52AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:52AM (#416468)

        Run enough experiments and you'll come across something weird to significance p > N) whether or not you use the null hypothesis approach or not

        Yes, because there really is a difference. The only use for "discovering" this over and over is to jump to some invalid conclusion.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:11PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:11PM (#416670) Journal
          You don't always magically have a model to work off of and when used properly NHST is an effective way to find a useful model.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:40PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:40PM (#416690)

            You don't always magically have a model to work off of

            Then you have no hypothesis to test. At that point your job is to describe the situation/phenomenon as carefully as possible.

            when used properly NHST is an effective way to find a useful model.

            There is no legitimate point to checking if there is exactly zero correlation or zero difference between two sets of subjects unless this is predicted by someones model. This idea that there is a proper use for NHST and people are just misusing it is a common one, but it is baseless. There is no legitimate use for testing a hypothesis not predicted by anyone's model, only misuses are possible. See for example this link, where it is discussed that the founders of those methods also need to misuse the outcome of NHST when trying to put their methods into practice: http://andrewgelman.com/2016/09/10/my-talk-at-warwick-england-230pm-thurs-15-sept/ [andrewgelman.com]

            Everyone misuses it because that is the only thing to do with it. At best, it is a waste of time that clutters up research reports with irrelevancies.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:28PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:28PM (#416713) Journal

              Then you have no hypothesis to test.

              Hypotheses are not models. It's not at all hard to construct hypotheses of the form, "this parameter correlates with that parameter".

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:46PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:46PM (#416729)

                "this parameter correlates with that parameter".

                1) That is not the hypothesis being tested by NHST. It is that there is zero correlation and the statistical model accurately describes the distribution of uncertainty. Ie it is the logical inverse with additional content.
                2) I would call that a prediction, not a hypothesis, but ok.
                3) Such "hypotheses" are too vague to be of any use. It amounts to saying an observation was consistent with a prediction that literally includes all possible outcomes except an infinitesimally small proportion at exactly zero. For a prediction to be useful it needs to allow us to meaningfully narrow down the possible reasons for whatever observation we are trying to explain.

                This type of stuff has all been explained before by people better than me. For example, figure 3 here:
                Paul Meehl. 1990. Appraising and Amending Theories: The Strategy of Lakatosian Defense and Two Principles That Warrant It. Psychological Inquiry 1990, Vol. 1, No. 2, 108-141. http://rhowell.ba.ttu.edu/meehl1.pdf [ttu.edu]

                The sad truth is that so much money, time, and effort has been wasted on NHST that people have a mental block to accepting how bad it is. Just accept it: we need to redo almost everything since 1980, and a lot of stuff since 1950. Many highly intelligent people wasted their lives on pseudoscience, but I guess that's life. Try it out, the tension between logic and your worldview will disappear.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:10PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:10PM (#416841) Journal

                  That is not the hypothesis being tested by NHST. It is that there is zero correlation and the statistical model accurately describes the distribution of uncertainty. Ie it is the logical inverse with additional content.

                  Sure, it's the negation of the hypothesis that's being tested.

                  I would call that a prediction, not a hypothesis

                  And I would call that meaningless word mincing that adds nothing to your argument.

                  Such "hypotheses" are too vague to be of any use.

                  Except of course, when you're wrong, which incidentally would be most of the time (except for really trivial correlations like X with X+constant which we would already know correlate in a known way via math). Then they aren't too vague to be of use.

                  It amounts to saying an observation was consistent with a prediction that literally includes all possible outcomes except an infinitesimally small proportion at exactly zero. For a prediction to be useful it needs to allow us to meaningfully narrow down the possible reasons for whatever observation we are trying to explain.

                  The exceptions are not infinitesimal.

                  The sad truth is that so much money, time, and effort has been wasted on NHST that people have a mental block to accepting how bad it is.

                  Just because a tool is misused doesn't mean that it doesn't work when used in a different manner (an "appropriate" manner, of course).

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:12PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:12PM (#416845)

                    Meh, you didn't really read any of my post. Maybe I will try again another day.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:02PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:02PM (#416905) Journal
                      I quoted two thirds of it and replied, so I did a lot more than just read it.