4 ms·

I know a lot of people here are tired of these teaser headlines and don't want to be told anything until there's an actual cure. But here me out - I'm old enoug

I know a lot of people here are tired of these teaser headlines and don't want to be told anything until there's an actual cure. But here me out - I'm old enough to have lost several friends and family to cancer. Along the way there have always been headlines like this where it seems that a breakthrough is imminent, and you know what? We are much better at preventing, detecting, and treating cancer than we were 40 years ago! I personally know several people who have gotten breast cancer and survived! I remember when that was practically a death sentence. Ditto for colon cancer. Even your prospects for lung cancer have improved dramatically. What has made this progress possible is this relentless research. Research that leads to reports being published. Promising leads being discussed. A huge portion of this research leads to dead ends - BUT - some leads to real progress and has in turn lead to real lives being saved. So I say continue with the research and continue publishing and sharing the research results.

zug_zug 1y ago
Yes that's true, but I think a lot of the knee-jerk reaction isn't intended to communicate "Stop researching cancer" it's more intended to communicate "Stop linkbaiting us." If the title said "Might someday" then that would probably be a more accurate picture of where something at this stage of research is at. Obviously some people here want to know all up-and-coming possibilities, clinical trials, or longshots because we're nerds about it. But others of us only care about the ones that are already succeeding in people. Having titles differentiate the two can avoid the frustration.
- hughw 1y ago
  Ok but after the first 1500 articles you’ve read about cancer breakthroughs, you understand that you’re going to read about a very early phase research project. You’re no longer sucked in by the baity headlines, are you? Do you really click it and then be totally surprised it says “in mice” in the text?
  - zug_zug 1y ago
    So it sounds like you're arguing linkbait is fine because we all have internalized some general skepticism to fight it. But actually I don't think that's the best approach. For one it takes more cognitive overhead to scan through 40 links and then play the mental "what will I actually get if I click this link?" 40 times. For the most part HN is great about not having linkbait. But when I do see something that sounds improbably good I just go straight to the comments and see if other people find the article legit (as is the case here).
- D-Coder 1y ago
  We need more research into immunization against clickbait titling.
- lonelyasacloud 1y ago
  On HN one of the things I enjoy and want more of is early news on medical breakthrough; which by its nature is unlikely to be "in humans". So from my pov if it is "in humans" then please put that in the title, otherwise leaving it out "out in animal model x" is just fine and is taken as a given.
phtrivier 1y ago
Of course, and I'm glad for you and loved ones (and so sorry for your losses) That being said, would any of this incremental research have been slower, or canceled, or derailed, if the HN articles about intermediate reports of lab experiment on mice had the word "on mice" in the title ? That's literally all I'm asking for here.
- asdff 1y ago
  Why do you need that caveat though? It would only really help if you didn't bother reading the article. And at which point I wonder how long you'd even retain that headline in your head for.
- taylodl 1y ago
  At some point you learn how medical research works. They're doing what they've always been doing. The onus is on us to adjust to them.
zeristor 1y ago
This tantalisingly claims to be THe cure for cancer. Sounds encouraging, and I’ll keep an eye out for it, but expect it to fall at some hurdle. I don’t mean to be gloomy, but we’re all going to die of something. A cure for cancer helps you get along, cures for dementia are more urgently being worked on. It seems to be after anti-biotic, and heart attack medication, huge cohorts of the elderly come up against an ailment that hadn’t much thought out into it. Will we just end up being picked off by the thousands of rare diseases that have been too rare to earn funding?

zug_zug 1y ago

Yes that's true, but I think a lot of the knee-jerk reaction isn't intended to communicate "Stop researching cancer" it's more intended to communicate "Stop linkbaiting us." If the title said "Might someday" then that would probably be a more accurate picture of where something at this stage of research is at. Obviously some people here want to know all up-and-coming possibilities, clinical trials, or longshots because we're nerds about it. But others of us only care about the ones that are already succeeding in people. Having titles differentiate the two can avoid the frustration.

hughw 1y ago
Ok but after the first 1500 articles you’ve read about cancer breakthroughs, you understand that you’re going to read about a very early phase research project. You’re no longer sucked in by the baity headlines, are you? Do you really click it and then be totally surprised it says “in mice” in the text?
- zug_zug 1y ago
  So it sounds like you're arguing linkbait is fine because we all have internalized some general skepticism to fight it. But actually I don't think that's the best approach. For one it takes more cognitive overhead to scan through 40 links and then play the mental "what will I actually get if I click this link?" 40 times. For the most part HN is great about not having linkbait. But when I do see something that sounds improbably good I just go straight to the comments and see if other people find the article legit (as is the case here).
D-Coder 1y ago
We need more research into immunization against clickbait titling.
lonelyasacloud 1y ago
On HN one of the things I enjoy and want more of is early news on medical breakthrough; which by its nature is unlikely to be "in humans". So from my pov if it is "in humans" then please put that in the title, otherwise leaving it out "out in animal model x" is just fine and is taken as a given.

phtrivier 1y ago

Of course, and I'm glad for you and loved ones (and so sorry for your losses) That being said, would any of this incremental research have been slower, or canceled, or derailed, if the HN articles about intermediate reports of lab experiment on mice had the word "on mice" in the title ? That's literally all I'm asking for here.

asdff 1y ago
Why do you need that caveat though? It would only really help if you didn't bother reading the article. And at which point I wonder how long you'd even retain that headline in your head for.
taylodl 1y ago
At some point you learn how medical research works. They're doing what they've always been doing. The onus is on us to adjust to them.

zeristor 1y ago

This tantalisingly claims to be THe cure for cancer. Sounds encouraging, and I’ll keep an eye out for it, but expect it to fall at some hurdle. I don’t mean to be gloomy, but we’re all going to die of something. A cure for cancer helps you get along, cures for dementia are more urgently being worked on. It seems to be after anti-biotic, and heart attack medication, huge cohorts of the elderly come up against an ailment that hadn’t much thought out into it. Will we just end up being picked off by the thousands of rare diseases that have been too rare to earn funding?