text_1: New Portable Scanner for Breast Cancer
text_2: Nowhere do we hear how far along the research is. The main section doesn’t even allude to evidence, other than to state that more research is to be done, which is true about most everything in medicine except limes for scurvy. As far as a reader can tell, the “new portable scanner” may have yet to leave a laboratory setting. All we know is that it’s been submitted to, and is a finalist for, an engineering & technology award. It’s not the same as clinical research. The article is quick to point out mammography’s low detection rates (sensitivity, perhaps?) in younger women, identifying the problem to be solved, but it never tells us the detection rates for the new tool. The data very well may be unknown. Which means detection rates could be worse! But from the structure of this article, focusing on technology but not evidence, a reader could only conclude the new kid on the block is superior. If we’re lucky, the new kid will make the world a better place. But filing a patent for a device is not the same level of proof as clinical research. People would be shocked to learn how many promising ideas from labs and napkins never survive clinical trials, how many prove to be worse for mankind than what we already do. Science is hard and complex. Last year’s uproar over the new mammography guidelines highlighted that there are important subtleties about screening for cancer, and that clear, balanced communication is crucial. It may sound like we ask a lot of journalists. But really, asking one more question would’ve turned this story around: How far along is this idea? The answer leads us to look beyond the novelty, beyond the theoretical benefits, beyond the entangled claims of the institution and inventor who stand to benefit, and see, simply, whether this idea is better or worse or needs 4 more years in the oven before we can even ask. Mammography isn’t perfect, and an improved screening technique for breast cancer could reduce pain, suffering, and death for many women. But that need doesn’t give journalists a license to hype.