3 ms·

"I think the field of medicine is extremely prone to disruption by clever, process-focused laymen, whether they are 15 or 30-years of age." But isn't that real

by larrys 14y ago

"I think the field of medicine is extremely prone to disruption by clever, process-focused laymen, whether they are 15 or 30-years of age." But isn't that really, as you said, "man bites dog" thinking? How many "clever, process-focused laymen" are there out there exactly? Do people really think that scientists involved in research with their training are at some kind of disadvantage in solving medical mysteries? That someone with no training whatsoever is just going to have some thought that others haven't explored in anything other than outlier situations? I mean if you take enough people of any age attempting enough things something is going to stick. This particular kid ignored his school work to work on this idea. How advisable is that in general? (We've seen that happen with people dropping out of Harvard as well who hit it big). So the problem I have with this is the way the media portrays it which plays down what happens to the vast majority of people who either ignore their school work to pursue a passion (with a slim chance of success) or drop out of college and later wished they had finished. Remembering Ron Kovic who was portrayed by Tom Cruise in "Born on the 4th of July". Wanted to go off and fight for his country like dad did based on all those romantic movies from WW2. Came back in a wheel chair.

TheSOB88 14y ago
I think the media is portraying it this way because there are a lot of people who get into fields and do work they way they're "supposed to", i.e., told to by peers and bosses, rather than, as this kid did, actually going through and figuring things out. Every medical breakthrough is a puzzle that's been solved, but some people aren't as interested in solving the puzzle as listening to what their boss says. Which makes sense, nobody wants to get fired, it's just suboptimal for problem solving.
danso 14y ago
> Do people really think that scientists involved in research with their training are at some kind of disadvantage in solving medical mysteries? I'll be brash and say "Yes" Not because these particular researchers/experts are dumber than those in any other field. But this is a natural psychological state for anyone working within a specialized, intellectually demanding field: to not be aware of (or not want to care about) any other machinations that happen peripherally to what they're focused on. So, I don't mean that a layperson can walk in and say, "Hey, I have a hunch if you combine this protein with this chemical and run this lab routine I developed on my own, you'll come up with the cure for cancer." But a layperson can notice that there may be an information gap between a researcher and a practitioner that results in groundbreaking work being ignored/not implemented correctly, and suggest a process that in itself is groundbreaking. Because a scientific breakthrough is not really useful if it's not actually used. To refer to the "Checklist" again, there is nothing on that list that a high schooler could not have thought up him/herself. But do you think its implementation would've been accepted anywhere if someone who was not a doctor had pushed it? Even though a doctor did devise it, it faced considerable resistance. So this is my wild speculation: The medicine field is especially susceptible to the detrimental effects of having blinders. Its practitioners are hard-working geniuses who have well-justified confidence in their processes and insights...but because of that confidence, may be unable to notice blind spots. Moreover, laypeople are unwilling to put in the effort to challenge medicine professionals, because doctors have traditionally such a reputation of being near-all-knowing, and so it's easy to sitback and say, "Who am I to question them? I didn't go to medical school for 8 years" And this is how the implementation of a sensible checklist that includes steps as simple as "Wash your hands" can have a huge impact in modern medicine.
- larrys 14y ago
  " to not be aware of (or not want to care about) any other machinations that happen peripherally to what they're focused on." I don't disagree and it sounds like the proverbial urban legend about the kid who said "just let the air out of the tires" when the truck was stuck under the bridge. I guess the question really is then how do you make an atmosphere where you can make people with blinders aware of other possible solutions in other disciplines or entertain wild thoughts from normals. (Not normals but I believe the success of Bell Labs stemmed from having all sorts of disciplines in close proxmity to each other to solve problems. But of course the "respect" factor was very important in that working.)
  - danso 14y ago
    That's the billion dollar question...as hackers, we've take a spirit of openness and free exchange for granted. I don't think that exists as much in many areas of medical research...even research done in academia is mostly sponsored by industry. The fact of it is, the overhead/investment needed to introduce a new innovation in medicine is extremely high, in terms of time and in millions of dollars. So sharing is not going to be actively encouraged. In terms of how to reduce the blinders in the practice of medicine in general...also, a tough question. Practitioners are resistant to change not only (or even perhaps mostly) because of intellectual elitism, but out of disincentives in the system. A formal implementation of a checklist that is as simple as "wash your hands" and "mark the limb to be operated upon with an 'X'" can be seen as a liability. Every ER surgeon has had some kind of experience when procedure is broken because of the pandaemonium involved in any given operation...it's not that they are too dumb to wash their hands, it's just an easy step to overlook when chaos breaks out. If a surgeon does forget to wash her hands and a patient suffers (either because of it or from an unrelated thing), that checklist is going to be seized on by the malpractice lawyer. Malpractice is a very real, common thing in the medical industry...and so even common sense innovations with be held back out of well-intentioned concerns. This goes for electronic medical keeping and many other kinds of improvements that are still in limbo.
    - larrys 14y ago
alttab 14y ago
Let's not get jelly. I think this sort of advancement, if actually true and not just sensational journalism, is really promising for the future of humanity. He's not working on getting people to click ads.
- dinkumthinkum 14y ago
  I completely agree. Even if it is a completely false and fabricated story, if it inspires other kids to go into STEM and do great things, solve real problems of humanity, I still think it is a great story.
- larrys 14y ago
  "He's not working on getting people to click ads." A great point. I didn't think of it from a role model point of view.
samspot 14y ago
I'm reading your comment as "Ignore your interests, passions, and ideas and just do the work that is put in front of you. Also, don't take any risks ever". Since I'm sure that's not what you really think, would you mind explaining your position further?

by larrys 14y ago

TheSOB88 14y ago

I think the media is portraying it this way because there are a lot of people who get into fields and do work they way they're "supposed to", i.e., told to by peers and bosses, rather than, as this kid did, actually going through and figuring things out. Every medical breakthrough is a puzzle that's been solved, but some people aren't as interested in solving the puzzle as listening to what their boss says. Which makes sense, nobody wants to get fired, it's just suboptimal for problem solving.

danso 14y ago

> Do people really think that scientists involved in research with their training are at some kind of disadvantage in solving medical mysteries? I'll be brash and say "Yes" Not because these particular researchers/experts are dumber than those in any other field. But this is a natural psychological state for anyone working within a specialized, intellectually demanding field: to not be aware of (or not want to care about) any other machinations that happen peripherally to what they're focused on. So, I don't mean that a layperson can walk in and say, "Hey, I have a hunch if you combine this protein with this chemical and run this lab routine I developed on my own, you'll come up with the cure for cancer." But a layperson can notice that there may be an information gap between a researcher and a practitioner that results in groundbreaking work being ignored/not implemented correctly, and suggest a process that in itself is groundbreaking. Because a scientific breakthrough is not really useful if it's not actually used. To refer to the "Checklist" again, there is nothing on that list that a high schooler could not have thought up him/herself. But do you think its implementation would've been accepted anywhere if someone who was not a doctor had pushed it? Even though a doctor did devise it, it faced considerable resistance. So this is my wild speculation: The medicine field is especially susceptible to the detrimental effects of having blinders. Its practitioners are hard-working geniuses who have well-justified confidence in their processes and insights...but because of that confidence, may be unable to notice blind spots. Moreover, laypeople are unwilling to put in the effort to challenge medicine professionals, because doctors have traditionally such a reputation of being near-all-knowing, and so it's easy to sitback and say, "Who am I to question them? I didn't go to medical school for 8 years" And this is how the implementation of a sensible checklist that includes steps as simple as "Wash your hands" can have a huge impact in modern medicine.

larrys 14y ago
" to not be aware of (or not want to care about) any other machinations that happen peripherally to what they're focused on." I don't disagree and it sounds like the proverbial urban legend about the kid who said "just let the air out of the tires" when the truck was stuck under the bridge. I guess the question really is then how do you make an atmosphere where you can make people with blinders aware of other possible solutions in other disciplines or entertain wild thoughts from normals. (Not normals but I believe the success of Bell Labs stemmed from having all sorts of disciplines in close proxmity to each other to solve problems. But of course the "respect" factor was very important in that working.)
- danso 14y ago
  That's the billion dollar question...as hackers, we've take a spirit of openness and free exchange for granted. I don't think that exists as much in many areas of medical research...even research done in academia is mostly sponsored by industry. The fact of it is, the overhead/investment needed to introduce a new innovation in medicine is extremely high, in terms of time and in millions of dollars. So sharing is not going to be actively encouraged. In terms of how to reduce the blinders in the practice of medicine in general...also, a tough question. Practitioners are resistant to change not only (or even perhaps mostly) because of intellectual elitism, but out of disincentives in the system. A formal implementation of a checklist that is as simple as "wash your hands" and "mark the limb to be operated upon with an 'X'" can be seen as a liability. Every ER surgeon has had some kind of experience when procedure is broken because of the pandaemonium involved in any given operation...it's not that they are too dumb to wash their hands, it's just an easy step to overlook when chaos breaks out. If a surgeon does forget to wash her hands and a patient suffers (either because of it or from an unrelated thing), that checklist is going to be seized on by the malpractice lawyer. Malpractice is a very real, common thing in the medical industry...and so even common sense innovations with be held back out of well-intentioned concerns. This goes for electronic medical keeping and many other kinds of improvements that are still in limbo.
  - larrys 14y ago

alttab 14y ago

Let's not get jelly. I think this sort of advancement, if actually true and not just sensational journalism, is really promising for the future of humanity. He's not working on getting people to click ads.

dinkumthinkum 14y ago
I completely agree. Even if it is a completely false and fabricated story, if it inspires other kids to go into STEM and do great things, solve real problems of humanity, I still think it is a great story.
larrys 14y ago
"He's not working on getting people to click ads." A great point. I didn't think of it from a role model point of view.

samspot 14y ago

I'm reading your comment as "Ignore your interests, passions, and ideas and just do the work that is put in front of you. Also, don't take any risks ever". Since I'm sure that's not what you really think, would you mind explaining your position further?