The leap from basic research to clinical research is difficult.
Ask anyone on the street what the difference between basic and clinical research is, and you’ll be met with blank stares. Almost no one, other than those in research, understands the progression of ideas and methods that translate an initial idea into a series of well-designed, meticulously monitored protocols.
The public has the view of the lone heroic scientist cracking the code of a thorny problem, but from there, Hollywood has blurred the steps between that initial ah-ha to the rollout of new drugs and therapies to treat disease, ending in that glorious moment when the cure miraculously arrives, whole cloth, as if springing into existence spontaneously.
Little is further from the truth, and it’s extremely important that people DO understand what happens between first ideas and final rollout. Because without that understanding, they are unlikely to engage in that most critical process – the clinical trial.
Public confidence in science in general has fallen precipitously over the past few decades and has now reached the point where many seem to think that drug discovery and development companies are nefarious actors, and that the drugs and treatments under development and in the marketplace are worthless or designed to be harmful. They don’t understand the value and the necessity of clinical research, [1] and have come to believe that drug companies are only in it for profit. Yes, companies do need to maintain profitability, but they are REQUIRED to develop drugs and treatments that work, because if they don’t, they won’t pass through the eye of the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) needle.
Science itself is undergoing huge, coordinated attacks by groups and individuals who generally have little understanding of the facts. This is where I believe increased focus needs to be given, in easy-to-understand explanations that not only demystify the process but show people why they are so integral.
How to unwind this problem.
To my mind, there is only one way – to mount a massive effort to educate the public in the necessity of clinical trials. Cancer is on the rise globally, courtesy of climate change, pollution and stress, among many other factors. Humanity is in a desperate race to both discover and create new methods and treatments to combat this growing problem. Unless the public is a willing and enthusiastic supporter of clinical research, these methods will never come to light.
Given that the human brain allocates more than half it’s total firepower to visual synthesis, visuals are the easiest way to absorb information, [2] particularly if complex. Assimilating that kind of content through text is impossible unless one is grounded in that science. Though much of the public may be ill-informed on the final points of oncology, they are quite capable of understanding complex things if presented in the right way. We’ve shown, through numerous projects aimed at the public, that this can be done.
This image from a 3D animation we created for Nature Drug Discovery used analogy to help explain the metabolic changes that occur in cells when they go rogue. Though there are a multitude of different cancers, they all share certain traits, such as the propensity to burn through massive amounts of glucose and ATP. If the public could be shown that cancers are like runaway trains; ignoring the body’s signals to limit their behavior, shoving other law-abiding cells out of the way, consuming resources at an alarming rate and learning how to adapt and outwit existing treatments, people would have a much clearer picture of why new drugs and treatments needed to continually be developed. Many people are rightly frightened of the word cancer, but their vision of it is hazy.
It isn’t just that the public has a limited understanding of oncology’s role in treating cancer. Another responsibility for this problem lies at the feet of those who market drugs and treatments to the public. I have watched more ads than I have cared to, and none of them come close to illuminating what the medicine being shown actually does. They radiate hope, but with no verifiable details, and that comes close to swindle in my book. They’re selling what transforms into expectation on the part of the viewer, and without good information that is a very dangerous thing. [3] It falls to their physicians to patiently explain why a particular treatment won’t work for them, or even if it might, what the chances of repair or total remission might be.
There is yet another chink in the medicinal armor – almost no one understands statistics. Numbers thrown out like “over 32% of patients saw relief” are taken as gospel, and many believe they will naturally fall within that 32%. And so, doctors become the bad guys in patients’ eyes because they throw water on the expectation that, of course, the patient will get better, no question.
I’m not suggesting that this problem is an easy fix. We’ve had at least thirty years of watching the public’s faith in science dwindle, and it’s going to take at least several generations to undo the damage. But we must start somewhere. Now.
I’ve been yelling into the void for years about the need for Hollywood to grow some interest in the sciences and lend a hand. They have the firepower to create extremely good content, but are they interested? No, because they see no ROI.
The ROI is society itself, functioning as a collective that takes care of everyone, whether they live in mansions or on the margins, through healthcare and other measures. We cannot have a civilization that thinks science is the enemy – if that path is taken, it will slowly and inexorably grind down to principalities, intractable divisions, infighting, greed, and distrust.
My view may seem apocalyptic but let me clarify – it’s not societal collapse yet, but it will be, one day, if we don’t do something about it.
Reference
[1] Rudnas B, Montanari E, Dall’Agata M, Petracci E, Serra P, Piancastelli A, Vertogen B, Zumaglini F, Venturini B, Testoni S, Gallà V, Monti M, Andreis D, Pagan F, Ragazzini A, Fabbri F, Gentili G, Affatato A, Nanni O. The patients’ understanding of clinical research. Annals of Oncology, Volume 27, iv115 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdw345.27
[2] Jawed S, Amin HU, Malik AS, Faye I. Classification of Visual and Non-visual Learners Using Electroencephalographic Alpha and Gamma Activities. Front Behav Neurosci. 2019 May 7;13:86. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00086. PMID: 31133829; PMCID: PMC6513874. [Article]
[3] Sullivan HW, O’Donoghue AC, Boudewyns V, Paquin RS, Ferriola-Bruckenstein K. Patient Understanding of Oncology Clinical Trial Endpoints in Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertising. Oncologist. 2023 Jul 5;28(7):e542-e553. doi: 10.1093/oncolo/oyad064. PMID: 37079495; PMCID: PMC10322139. [Article]
Feature image: Doctor talking with patient. Photo courtesy: © 2023 – 2025 Licensed under the Unsplash+ License
DOI
