I hate to admit it, but I am probably addicted to my every Wednesday morning 8 AM routine when I am invariably seated at the Stanford Department of Medicine Grand Rounds. It is the ritual weekly all departmental get-together of us like-minded souls generally featuring a presentation on a topic of general interest. Often times we have an external professor, but sometimes we rely on our own competence. In my 40 years of attendance I have presented twice.
Until recently it seemed that every lecture would end up with a detailing of the role of such and such a gene in the topic under the discussion. It was, thus, a generic reflection of the gene focus of Stanford. Numerous Nobel prizes attest to the fixation. I have always held that this genocentriam was an overstatement. Genes are important but not that important.
Yet in the last year I believe I detect a change in orientation. Instead of the gene it is now stem cells with the high profile fixation. Now many presentations feature a stem cell reference. Some of these involve a specific reference to cancer, but often times other topics of more remote connection, such as injury repair, "what if?" sort of queries are described.
The gene/stem cell focus of our departmental meetings became a reference point for me as I read an article in the May 13, 2016 issue of Science. The title that of the article was "Confronting stem cell hype; against hyperbole, distortion, and overselling." The authors of the article were Timothy Caulfield from Alberta and three others from Japan, US, and Canada. They write "the risk of harmful consequences, including misleading the public, creating unrealistic expectations, misinforming policy debates, and devaluing methodologic approaches to research," thereby generates premature or unwarranted clinical application. This tendency creates a gap between public expectations, and the actual state of stem cell science and clinical development.
Three years ago the Feds got involved in this area when the FDA told 23 and Me to cease and desist. The meteoric rise in this startup that harvested gene arrays in submitted samples of saliva was artificially prompted by excessive expectation of the implications of miniature data sets.
The Science paper implicates "overly optimistic press releases, commercialization and translational pressure, and media spin. Studies have found widespread use of sensational language in peer-reviewed abstracts, studies, and institutional press releases."
The threat, of course, lies in the possibility that irresponsible reporting leads to inflated expectations of benefit without an accompanying recital of risk, personal and financial. The explosive eruption of the communicative power of unregulated social media compounds the threat.
The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) has produced specific guidelines for this "hype"issue. It promotes "accurate, balanced, and responsive public representations of stem cell research. As an example the guidelines highlight work on spinal cord injury that has a high emotional pull. Research workers are encouraged to discuss the down sides as well as potential value. "Vigilant self control" is a powerful exhortation.
I recall my wise physician Father's advice
"Flattery is like perfume. It smells wonderful, but it's poison if you drink it".
The article concludes, "Hype is not inevitable".
Beware Science Hype.