
Top Stories 
Published On May 3, 2014
Second Opinion Spring 2014
Readers weigh in on the challenges of medical literacy and issues with replicating research.
OVERWHELMED, UNCOMPREHENDING
As a new cancer patient who is medically literate, I had trouble staying calm after reading “Comprehension Test” (Winter 2014). Some time ago, I was a writer and editor for the peer-reviewedCAPsules, and my job involved interviewing and sometimes negotiating with physicians. But after a diagnosis of breast cancer, when I went to meet, just meet, the radiation oncologist, I fell into a tornado. After a mountain of statistics and little conversation, I said yes to radiology. I was swept into the hall with a lot of people talking all at once, not looking me in the face to see whether I was clear about what was happening.
Breast cancer is not the only diagnosis that can leave the patient, however literate, completely overwhelmed, and sometimes unable to defend herself quickly enough, demand explanation or question what is happening. Only physicians can be sure that a conversation, not a lecture, is taking place. A fruitful conversation is for the physician’s protection as well as the patient’s.
Margaret Fleming // The Woodlands, Texas
ACCENTUATE THE NEGATIVE
The past 40 to 50 years have been a time of exciting advances in biomedical research. However, remarkable progress has brought with it a host of problems. As Proto has highlighted (“The Problem of Replication,” Winter 2014), the percentage of studies publishing data that turn out to be irreproducible has reached levels that threaten the financial and intellectual health of the scientific enterprise.
What may be needed is a return to the old view of science as a somewhat messy activity—human endeavors that rarely represent perfect discoveries of elements of truth, but instead are based on the use of imperfect models and hypotheses often built on sand. Studies minimizing observations that are discordant with a particular point of view should be considered incomplete until they are validated by further independent work. Based on these principles and the premise that failure is as important a learning element in science as in other human activities, the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine provides a forum for publication and discussion of conflicting, controversial or negative (in the context of current understanding) findings. The scientific community can only learn from negative results if the data are published. Balanced information—both positive and negative—is as needed now for scientific progress as it ever was.
Bjorn Reino Olsen // Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine
Dispatches

What Makes a Kid Clumsy? More research into coordination disorders shows why some children are more prone to trip, fumble and spill the milk.

Eyes in the Sky Satellite data can be used to assess the health impact of dust storms and the spread of mosquito-borne diseases. Additional applications could be on the horizon.

Could This One Change Help Curb the Opioid Crisis? To prescribe an effective bridge to addiction treatment, emergency physicians must get special training and receive a waiver. Making that process easier—or eliminating the requirement altogether—could make a big impact.

One Thing Leads to the Next Robert Lefkowitz is best known for revealing the mechanism behind hundreds of drugs in use today. But he thinks of himself as a storyteller first and has a new book out to make his case.

Podcast: The Research Year That Was Medical research labs have faced a difficult stretch of closed buildings and competing priorities. Yet they have also produced milestone discoveries—and not only on COVID-19.

The Shape of Us Two milestone discoveries in protein modeling promise to change the fundamentals of drug discovery.

Universal Flu Vaccines Move Forward In the shadow of coronavirus vaccine development, another vaccine was making solid progress.

Top Stories 

The Neuroscience of Giving Up
Why do some people react poorly, even catastrophically, in emergency situations?