The tragedy of science: we cannot fault the tiger for being the tiger

Vinay Prasad is a young researcher in oncology who recently published the post reproduced below on his blog. It is about how oncology has become a field whose main purpose is mainly to enrich companies and practitioners. The tragedy of these reflections is that they apply just as well to many other fields of science. And it is sad to think that science started as a disinterested search for truth, and then it was turned into an ideological shield for criminal activities. Correctly, Vinay Prasad says that we cannot fault corporations for aiming at profits (we cannot fault the tiger for being the tiger). But we can fault the whole health system built with the purpose of making money instead of helping patients. Vinay Prasad's most recent book (2020) is titled "Malignant". I am reading it. It was already rather dark, but not as pessimistic as his latest post. 

Here are some excerpts from Vinay Prasad's text, you can look at the complete text on his blog:

The Tragedy of Oncology

Vinay Prasad

Excerpts from https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/the-tragedy-of-oncology

I started my journey into cancer medicine more than 10 years ago, and it has been joyous and tragic, fulfilling and frustrating, all at once and often on the same day. Recently, I returned from our latest conference, and I had a chance to think about that experience a few days later in the mountains of the Sierra Nevadas. My conclusion is grim.

....

The tragedy in oncology is that we have dismantled the system that is meant to tell real innovation from pseudo-innovation. Almost no one understands the problem, even few care about fixing it, and instead most hope to fatten themselves of the riches, while the opportunity exists. Meanwhile, we have entirely lost sight of the goal— the purpose of our task. We have forgotten that this is about helping people sick and dying of cancer live long and live better. That goal is lost.

10 years ago, I believed that, as a younger generation swept through, reform would be inevitable. 10 years later, I see how naive I was. For every young person who understands the problem, there are 9 more salivating at the idea of becoming the next key opinion leader, eagerly going to advisory boards or pharma-sponsored dinners. Every young person who speaks out publicly is advised by colleagues or their boss to stop talking. Some are even told not to (or fearful of) retweeting critical content like mine or Aaron Goodman’s.

.......

Academic leaders. This category contains some massive failures. We have ‘leaders': who are pocketing 10s of thousands from Pharma and defending their (failed) products. What am I to think when the company behind Melflufen hires a leading academic to defend a garbage subgroup analysis at the ODAC? What am I to think when university after university enters into financial arrangements with companies? Pushing back on corporatism is impossible, when you are on the payroll.

Journals and professional societies. Many journals block critical commentary. Many organizations sell out their professional conferences to Pharma. These institutions are now so dependent of Pharma largess that they are powerless to say anything. Only a few voices inside these organizations keep them from toppling into complete advertisements.

Junior faculty. The vast majority are busy running uncontrolled trials that will not help anyone (most uncontrolled trials can’t even answer a useful question). Many have joined ad-boards, etc. Some are studying important topics but have nothing novel to add. An abstract on health disparities that shows… health disparities. Except the solution remains unclear, and the authors think all that is needed are more expensive, mediocre drugs. Cookie cutter projects is another weak spot. If you don’t have a novel idea, it’s ok to think for a while— rather than follow the path of least resistance.

Oncology press. A cottage industry of rag publications cover oncology. They are almost entirely funded by pharma or it’s ads, and they have no critical coverage. Even oncology podcasts are upwardly biased. This is not journalism, but advertisement.

The Industry. The group that I have the least quarrel with is pharma itself. We cannot fault the tiger for being the tiger. Instead, it is the aforementioned entities who have let their guard down. The tiger has a moral obligation to make profit. We were the ones who did not incentivize the right things.

......

How will it end?

Internal reform is not possible. Too many people benefit from the status quo. Reform will come from government regulation— and must come from the USA— that tilts incentives to what matters. I will continue to write, podcast and publish on the flaws of cancer medicine, but going forward, I will spend more time strategizing on political solutions to this problem.

Meanwhile, I won’t forget the goal of oncology: to help people with cancer live as long and as well as possible, using as few drugs as possible, and, pushing for the best evidence to guide those choices. Perhaps we should all have to take that oath.

What is Science? Figuring out God's Will

Here is an interesting post by Ian Schindler,  It is not directly related to holobionts, but it deals with the way we see the world. Knowledge is something that needs to flow freely among people, just as information flows freely among the nodes of all good holobionts. Ian Schindler teaches at the Capitole University in Toulouse (Fr) and is also a member of the "proud holobionts" discussion group. If you wish to join the group, write me at ugo.bardi(swinglette)unifi.it.

A post by  IAN SCHINDLER:

What is science? To me science is trying to figure out God's will playing by the brutal rules of science which are:

1. God's will is explained using laws.
2. The laws must be precise and significant.
3. If your theory does not agree with empirical evidence, it's wrong.

An immediate corollary of rule 3 is that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory is correct. It is only possible to prove that it is wrong. It is wrong if it doesn't agree with observation. The scientific theories we accept are those that have not yet been proven wrong.

Richard Feynman (who was perhaps not such a fine man but he was a fine physicist and entertaining) on this topic: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp20d8

Remark: The law of supply and demand violates what Feynman calls vagueness and I call significance. It cannot be proved wrong being compatible with all possible price data. Thus nothing can be deduced from it. One can substitute "The price is the will of God" for the law of supply and demand.

Throughout history, good scientists have been spectacularly wrong about many things. In some sense, the smarter they are, the better they can be at fooling themselves. Max Planck (who chose to publish Einstein's papers on relativity) said something quite illuminating: "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Example: When I was young I was told that the Catholic Church put Galileo in prison for supporting the heliocentric theory of the universe. What my teachers failed to add was that the Church jailed Galileo at the bidding of scientists working on the geocentric theory of the universe. Scientists who had worked very hard on the geocentric theory were understandably more upset by the heliocentric theory than theologians. See https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy

That is why I pick my fights. I teach mathematics to economists. I do not hide from my economist colleagues that I am very dubious as to the usefulness of their theories. But I waste no time trying to convince them that my theories are more useful. I do try to isolate them. I explain my economic theories to students and non economists. Note that there is a trend that winners of the prize in economics in honor of Alfred Nobel is going increasingly to economists doing empirical work. This is due to the failure of mainstream economic theory to predict events. 

Similarly, I do not waste time trying to convince global warming skeptics that global warming is occurring. I do use probability. I ask them what they think the probability of global warming is. I also nail them for vagueness. If someone talks about "natural temperature variation", I immediately substitute "the will of God". Moreover, I tell them that I will believe that global warming is not occurring through increased greenhouse gas emissions when they provide a mathematical model that explains the earth's change in temperature over time independently from the composition of the atmosphere.

Mathematics is the language of science because of the precision of mathematical statements. A revolution occurred in science (and mathematics) when Newton wrote down a differential equation to describe gravitational attraction.

Of much concern to me is the amount of censorship occurring just about everywhere and the false news disseminated by mainstream media. Because it is so easy to document falsehoods perpetrated by mainstream news media, it is difficult to know who to trust. This makes it easier to get suckered into a
conspiracy theory rabbit hole. Note that Mark Zuckerberg recently stated that the FBI influenced Facebook to censor the (true) Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election. This is a major reason that I support substack. I think it is much healthier to have a place where controversial ideas, scientific or otherwise, can be openly debated. Glenn Greenwald who worked for The Guardian when he helped break the Snowden story, helped found The Intercept because of editorial pressure at The Guardian. He resigned from The Intercept because of editorial pressure there and now publishes out of substack. He has documented how mainstream media disseminates false news stories, see for example

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-do-big-media-outlets-so-often,
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/corporate-news-outlets-again-confirm,
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/corporate-medias-double-standard

Matt Orfalea makes videos documenting fake news disseminated by mainstream media: https://rumble.com/search/video?q=orfalea It is a bit shocking to see with what fervor the media can insist a falsehood is true.

Note that I linked Orfalea's rumble channel rather than his youtube channel. I support rumble for the same reason I support substack, no censorship.

I will add that the censorship extends to peer-reviewed scientific papers. Many papers are rejected not for any scientific reason but because either the result is contrary to an accepted result, the references are not those of the referee, or the author is unknown. One only has to look at the difficulties Lynn Margulis encountered in her career.

How sloppy can science reporting be? Einstein never ridiculed Wegener's theory of continental drift

 

Alfred Wegener (1880–1930) -- one of the great minds of the 20th century, the developer of the "Continental Drift" theory that he formulated for the first time in 1912. It was a milestone in understanding how the Earth system works. Nothing of what we know of the great holobiont that's the world's ecosystem would make sense without the movement of the continents that causes a continuous exchange of matter from the mantle to the crust, and back. 

Reading about science can be a confusing experience, where you wade among facts and factoids, and you try to make sense of what you read. Recently, I was dismayed to read that, apparently, "Einstein ridiculed Wegener's theory of Continental Drift" (the one now called "plate tectonics."). 

It was one of those flashing sentences that appear and disappear on social media. I can't find it anymore, but it puzzled me enough that I went to check the Web. And, yes, there is this story that Einstein had criticized, even ridiculed, Wegener for his theory. 

Alfred Wegener and Albert Einstein were two great scientists, both idols of my youth. It would be surprising if Einstein engaged in the kind of feeding frenzy that run-of-the-mill scientists engage in when they group together to defame someone smarter than they are. But it is true that Wegener's ideas went through a barrage of rabid criticism, not unlike the kind that hit the "Limits to Growth" 1972 study. Plenty of this criticism of his theory was politically motivated. Wegener was German and, after WWI, everything German became unpopular in the English-speaking world. A curse that lasted well until the 1960s, when the idea of "Continental Drift" was reconsidered and widely accepted under the name of "Plate Tectonics."

So, did Einstein really fall for the general denigration of Alfred Wegener and his ideas? But what is this idea based on? Let's explore the web a little. In a recent article in "Discovery Magazine," we read that "As late as 1958, a book rejecting continental drift included a foreword by Albert Einstein." But no reference is given, nor what Einstein actually said.

More work with the search engines, and we can find, on a site called "human-stupidity.com,"  a post where a reference is given. The link goes to a post in German from "Der Spiegel" where they say that "Selbst 43 Jahre später unterstützte Albert Einstein Wegeners Kritiker noch mit einem Buchvorwort" and even with my very limited German, I can understand that they don't say anything more than that Einstein wrote a preface of a book that supported Wegener's critics. But even here, no link, no reference.

Back to the search engines and, finally, the mystery is solved. I found (I didn't know) that Einstein gave some important contributions to geodynamics during his career. The story is told in detail in this article by Frias et al., where we can read how Einstein befriended a Geologist named Charles Hapgood, of whom he wrote in 1954 that: 

I frequently receive communications from people who wish to consult me concerning their unpublished ideas. It goes without saying that these ideas are very seldom possessed of scientific validity. The very first communication, however, that I received from Mr. Hapgood electrified me. His idea is original, of great simplicity, and—if it continues to prove itself—of great importance to everything that is related to the history of the earth’s surface. (Einstein, 18th of May 1954, courtesy of the Einstein Archives Online).

And here is the book cover: 

This book can still be found for sale, but it has become a collector's item, and it is atrociously expensive. From the snippets available on the Web, it is clear that Hapgood criticized Wegner, but his ideas were not so different. He did accept that the continents move, but he proposed a different mechanism for their movement. His idea was that continental plates were pushed by a mechanism related to the centrifugal effects of the growth of ice.

And how about Einstein? Nowhere in Albert Einstein's preface we can read a criticism of Wegener's ideas, a point clearly made by Frias et al. in their article. 

And there we are: Einstein remains a hero of mine. He correctly interpreted the way science should be done. Hapgood's work was serious science and it deserved to be taken into consideration. That's what Einstein said. 

In any case, the carelessness of people who write about science is bewildering. They simply rewrite what they read without worrying too much about verifying what they are writing. A similar story is that of the "horse manure catastrophe" where people still keep citing a sentence that was never written. And when you hear people still saying that "The Club of Rome made wrong predictions"............... So it goes.  

 

Anastassia Makarieva: Biotic Regulation in Florence

 

Anastassia Makarieva  (center) receives a gift of appreciation for her talk in Florence, on Dec 11th, 2021, from Nicola and Anna in the form of a jewel made by Nicola, jeweler in Florence.

We had the pleasure of a visit to Florence of Anastassia Makarieva, one of the world's most creative and brilliant scientists in the field of ecosystems. Anastassia, together with Viktor Gorshkov, is the originator of the concepts of "biotic regulation" and "biotic pump" -- both fundamental in our understanding of the functioning of the ecosphere. Together, they mean that the current climate change is only in part the direct consequence of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but in significant part the result of the human perturbation of the ecosystem, and in particular the destruction of the old-growth forests. 

So, Anastassia carries a message: it is vital for the planet to keep forests alive and in their pristine state. And that means just what the word says: forests, not just trees. Those politicians who compete for who plants more trees are just doing greenwashing. They may be harming the planetary ecosystem more than helping it. A tree, alone or as part of a plantation, does not have the same balancing effect and water carrying system that a forest has. A message that's not easy to understand for the current generation of decision-makers, used to the concept that a tree is worth only what profit it can provide once it is cut and sold on the market. Nevertheless, we must try to pass this message. 

For Anastassia's talk in Florence, we experimented with a new format of presentation. To have Anastassia give an "official" talk, I should have gone through I don't even know what mass of paperwork, and then her talk would have been attended only by the few academics who still have some interest in creative research. All that in a super-safe, soulless room. The university, nowadays, has become something like Dracula's castle, with the difference that it is a scary place even in the daytime. 

To say that these official seminars can be disappointing is an understatement. A few years ago I organized a talk by a Russian scientist on the question of the supply of gas from Russia to Europe. You would think it is an interesting subject. Well, the attendees were exactly zero, besides me, the sponsor of the talk, and the Russian scientist herself. And at that time there was no Covid yet to make people afraid even of their shadows.   

So, this time we decided to play it differently: a colleague of mine kindly offered her living room to host Anastassia's seminar and we announced it on the social channels in addition to the regular university channels. We also offered drinks and snacks. We didn't know what to expect and we had no idea of how many people would bother taking a trip to the hills near Florence to listen to a Russian researcher speaking in English about her research. 

It was a remarkable success. Not a big crowd, but we collected about 25 persons, of whom only 3 were professional scientists (I think they were those who would have shown up had we organized the talk in the university). And they all listened with extreme interest to Anastassia's talk, fascinated by the story of how the ecosphere stabilizes climate and how the forest's biotic pump creates wind and rain. When it was the time of telling the story of how Anastassia and Viktor survived for months in the boreal forests in a tent, with bears strolling nearby, the audience was completely captivated. The informal party after the seminar was an occasion to build up friendship among people who share the same views of the world, even though they are not necessarily scientists.  

There is something to learn, here. Science is not a Moloch to worship, nor a dictator to be obeyed. And it is not even a conventicle of hyperspecialists who know so much about so little that they can be said to know everything about nothing. Science is one of the several possible embodiments of the concept of "philosophy," the love of knowledge. It is something that does not belong to anybody, it belongs to everybody. And that was clear at Anastassia's talk. 

h/t Benedetta Treves and all those who helped organize this seminar. To know more about the biotic pump and biotic regulation, see the site https://bioticregulation.ru/