Previously, I have talked some of the ways that patients of chronic health issues and medical disabilities feel impacted by the research cycle. Part one of this ongoing series detailed a discussion I participated in at an ad-hoc support group of 18-21 year olds at a major health conference. Part two detailed some of the things I wish I had gotten a chance to add, based on my own experiences and the words of those around me, but never got the chance to due to time constraints.
After talking at length about the patient side of things, I’d like to pivot slightly to the clinical side. If we go by what most patients know about the clinical research process, here is a rough picture of how things work:
First, a conclave of elite doctors and professor gather in secret, presumably in a poorly lit conference room deep beneath the surface of the earth, and hold a brainstorming session of possible questions to study. Illicit substances may or not be involved in this process, as the creativity required to come up with such obscure and esoteric concerns as “why do certain subspecies of rats have funny looking brains?” and “why do stressful things make people act stressed out?” is immense. At the end of the session, all of the ideas are written down on pieces of parchment, thrown inside a hat, and drawn randomly to decide who will study what.
Second, money is extracted from the public at large by showing people on the street pictures of cute, sad looking children being held at needle-point by an ominously dressed person in a lab coat, with the threat that unless that person hands over all of their disposable income, the child will be forced to receive several injections per day. This process is repeated until a large enough pile of cash is acquired. The cash is then passed through a series of middlemen in dark suits smoking cigars, who all take a small cut for all their hard work of carrying the big pile of cash.
At this point, the cash is loaded onto a private jet and flown out to the remote laboratories hidden deep in the Brazilian rainforests, the barren Australian deserts, the lost islands of the arctic and Antarctic regions, and inside the active volcanoes of the pacific islands. These facilities are pristine, shining snow white and steel grey, outfitted with all the latest technology from a mid-century science fiction film. All of these facilities are outfitted either by national governments, or the rich elite of major multinational corporations, who see to all of the upkeep and grant work, leaving only the truly groundbreaking work to the trained scientists.
And who are the scientists? The scientist is a curious creature. First observed in 1543 naturalists hypothesized scientists to be former humans transmogrified by the devil himself in a Faustian bargain whereby the subject loses most interpersonal skills and material wealth in exchange for incredible intelligence a steady, monotonous career playing with glassware and measuring equipment. No one has ever seen a scientist in real life, although much footage exists of the scientist online, usually flaunting its immense funding and wearing its trademark lab coat and glasses. Because of the abundance of such footage, yet lack of real-life interactions, it has been speculated that scientists may possess some manner of cloaking which renders them invisible and inaudible outside of their native habitat.
The scientists spend their time exchanging various colored fluid between Erlenmeyer flasks and test tubes, watching to see which produces the best colors. When the best colors are found, a large brazier is lit with all of the paper currency acquired earlier. The photons from the fire reaction may, if the stars are properly aligned, hit the colored fluid in such a way as to cause the fluid to begin to bubble and change into a different color. If this happens often enough, the experiment is called a success.
The scientists spend the rest of their time meticulously recording the precise color that was achieved, which will provide the necessary data for analyst teams to divine the answers to the questions asked. These records are kept not in English, or any other commonly spoken language, but in Scientific, which is written and understood by only a handful of non-scientists, mainly doctors, teachers, and engineers. The process of translation is arduous, and in order to be fully encrypted requires several teams working in tandem. This process is called peer review, and, at least theoretically, this method makes it far more difficult to publish false information, because the arduousness of the process provides an insurmountable barrier to those motivated by anything other than the purest truth.
Now, obviously all of this is complete fiction. But the fact that I can make all of this up with a straight face speaks volumes, both about the lack of public understanding of how modern clinical research works, and the lack of transparency of the research itself. For as much as we cheer on the march of scientific advancement and technological development, for as much media attention is spent on new results hot off the presses, and for as much as the stock images and characters of the bespectacled expert adorned in a lab coat and armed with test tubes resounds in both popular culture and the popular consciousness, the actual details of what research is being done, and how it is being executed, is notably opaque.
Much of this is by design, or is a direct consequence of how research is structured. The scientific method by which we separate fact from fiction demands a level of rigor that is often antithetical to human nature, which requires extreme discipline and restraint. A properly organized double-blind controlled trial, the cornerstone of true scientific research, requires that the participants and even the scientists measuring results be kept in the dark as to what they are looking for, to prevent even the subtlest of unconscious biases from interfering. This approach, while great at testing hypotheses, means that the full story is only known to a handful of supervisors until the results are ready to be published.
The standard of scientific writing is also incredibly rigorous. In professional writing, a scientist is not permitted to make any claims or assumptions unless either they have just proven it themselves, in which case they are expected to provide full details of their data and methodology, or can directly cite a study that did so. For example, a scientist cannot simply say that the sky is blue, no matter how obvious this may seem. Nor even can a scientist refer to some other publication in which the author agreed that the sky is blue, like a journalist might while providing citations for a story. A scientist must find the original data proving that the sky is blue, that it is consistently blue, and so forth, and provide the documentation for others to cross check the claims themselves.
These standards are not only obligatory for those who wish to receive recognition and funding, but they are enforced for accreditation and publication in the first place. This mindset has only become more entrenched as economic circumstances have caused funding to become more scarce, and as political and cultural pressure have cast doubts on “mainstream institutions” like academia and major research organizations. Scientists are trained to only give the most defensible claims, in the most impersonal of words, and only in the narrow context for which they are responsible for studying. Unfortunately, although this process is unquestionably effective at testing complex hypotheses, it is antithetical to the nature of everyday discourse.
It is not, as my colleague said during our conference session said, that “scientists suck at marketing”, but rather that marketing is fundamentally incongruous with the mindset required for scientific research. Scientific literature ideally attempts to lay out the evidence with as little human perspective as possible, and let the facts speak for themselves, while marketing is in many respects the art of conjuring and manipulating human perspective, even where such perspectives may diverge from reality.
Moreover, the consumerist mindset of our capitalist society amplifies this discrepancy. The constant arms race between advertisers, media, and political factions means that we are awash in information. This information is targeted to us, adjusted to our preferences, and continually served up on a silver platter. We are taught that our arbitrary personal views are fundamentally righteous, that we have no need to change our views unless it suits us, and that if there is really something that requires any sort of action or thought on our part, that it will be similarly presented in a pleasant, custom tailored way. In essence, we are taught to ignore things that require intellectual investment, or challenge our worldview.
There is also the nature of funding. Because it is so difficult to ensure that trials are actually controlled, and to write the results in such a counterintuitive way, the costs of good research can be staggering, and finding funding can be a real struggle. Scientists may be forced to work under restrictions, or to tailor their research to only the most profitable applications. Results may not be shared to prevent infringement, or to ensure that everyone citing the results is made to pay a fee first. I could spend pages on different stories of technologies that could have benefited humanity, but were kept under wraps for commercial or political reasons.
But of course, it’s easy to rat on antisocial scientists and pharmaceutical companies. And it doesn’t really get to the heart of the problem. The problem is that, for most patients, especially those who aren’t enrolled in clinical trials, and don’t necessarily have access to the latest devices, the whole world of research is a black hole into which money is poured with no apparent benefit in return. Maybe if they follow the news, or hear about it from excited friends and relations (see previous section), they might be aware of a few very specific discoveries, usually involving curing one or two rats out of a dozen tries.
Perhaps, if they are inclined towards optimism, they will be able to look at the trend over the last several decades towards better technology and better outcomes. But in most cases, the truly everyday noticeable changes seem to only occur long after they have long been obvious to the users. The process from patient complaints with a medical device, especially in a non-critical area like usability and quality of life, that does not carry the same profit incentive for insurers to apply pressure, to a market product, is agonizingly slow.
Many of these issues aren’t research problems so much as manufacturing and distribution problems. The bottleneck in making most usability tweaks, the ones that patients notice and appreciate, isn’t in research, or even usually in engineering, but in getting a whole new product approved by executives, shareholders, and of course, regulatory bodies. (Again, this is another topic that I could, and probably will at some future date, rant on about for several pages, but suffice it to say that when US companies complain about innovation being held up by the FDA, their complaints are not entirely without merit).
Even after such processes are eventually finished, there is the problem of insurance. Insurance companies are, naturally, incredibly averse to spending money on anything unless and until it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not only safe, but cost effective. Especially for basic, low income plans, change can come at a glacial pace, and for state-funded services, convincing legislators to adjust statutes to permit funding for new innovations can be a major political battle. This doesn’t even begin to take into account the various negotiated deals and alliances between certain providers and manufacturers that make it harder for new breakthroughs to gain traction (Another good topic for a different post).
But these are economic problems, not research. For that matter, most of the supposed research problems are simply perception problems. Why am I talking about markets and marketing when I said I was going to talk about research?
Because for most people, the notions of “science” and “progress” are synonymous. We are constantly told, by our politicians, by our insurers, by our doctors, and by our professors that not only do we have the very best level of care that has ever been available in human history, but that we also have the most diligent, most efficient, most powerful organizations and institutions working tirelessly on our behalf to constantly push forward the frontier. If we take both of these statements at face value, then it follows that anything that we do not already have is a research problem.
For as much talk as there was during our conference sessions about how difficult life was, how so very badly we all wanted change, and how disappointed and discouraged we have felt over the lack of apparent progress, it might be easy to overlook the fact that far better technologies than are currently used by anyone in that room already exist. At this very moment, there are patients going about their lives using systems that amount to AI-controlled artificial organs. These systems react faster and more accurately than humans could ever hope to, and the clinical results are obvious.
The catch? None of these systems are commercially available. None of them have even been submitted to the FDA. A handful of these systems are open source DIY projects, and so can be cobbled together by interested patients, though in many cases this requires patients to go against medical advice, and take on more engineering and technical responsibility than is considered normal for a patient. Others are in clinical trials, or more often, have successfully completed their trials and are waiting for manufacturers to begin the FDA approval process.
This bottleneck, combined with the requisite rigor of clinical trials themselves, is what has given rise to the stereotype that modern research is primarily chasing after its own tail. This perception makes even realistic progress seem far off, and makes it all the more difficult to appreciate what incremental improvements are released.
