

A virus that kills cancer: the cure that's waiting in the cold - logn
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/9508895/A-virus-that-kills-cancer-the-cure-thats-waiting-in-the-coldc.html#

======
lutusp
This is a classic example of the reality distortion field that efficiently
separates science journalism from science.

The article title: "A virus that kills cancer: the cure that's waiting in the
cold".

The researcher's explanation: "Our results are only in the lab so far, not in
humans, and many treatments that work in the lab can turn out to be not so
effective in humans."

To the uninitiated, "only in the lab" means _in vitro_ (from the Latin "in
glass", meaning in a test tube or Petri dish), not in any living creature, and
certainly not a human being.

This means that the "virus that kills cancer" hasn't ever been called on to
kill cancer in a person suffering from cancer. Just saying.

There is nothing so tempting to an unscrupulous science journalist as marrying
the words "cancer" and "cure" in an article title. To do this, they often turn
their back on reality, as in this case.

The research may deserve support, but sleazy journalism like this can only
hinder the work, and science.

------
tokenadult
Yesterday's submission

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4463519>

gained no comments (although more upvotes than this submission so far) and I
see that today's submission has a no-op # character at the end of the URL,
which is considered bad form for a resubmission. I did some looking up of
other sources on the profiled researcher and on the general issue of research
related to adenoviruses and cancer yesterday when the first submission came
in. I liked the article and its overall tone more than (apparently) some of
today's commenters liked it, but didn't upvote it because it is too
preliminary--wild speculation about cancer cures happens every day. The
particular researcher profiled in the article (who seems cautious and
sensible, as quoted by the reporter here) is obscure. The research on
adenoviruses and cancer is vast, going on in many laboratories in many parts
of the world, and so far has been disappointing in its results. This is too
early for front-page news here.

As I typically do, here I once again recommend the article "Warning Signs in
Experimental Design and Interpretation"

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

by Peter Norvig, Google's director of research. Every day on Hacker News we
see news articles submitted announcing a "cure" for this or that dreaded
disease. Before believing such eagerly awaited stories, check out their
research base and find out if other researchers have replicated and verified
the same research results.

~~~
logn
Sorry about the # no-op. Either my browser or the source did that and I didn't
notice.

------
logn
The author appeals to millionaires to fund this promising research which drug
companies won't invest in because it can't be patented due to previous
publication. But can a kickstarter guru help get this off the ground?

~~~
jonaphin
I love the idea of a kickstarter!

I'm just wondering what "direct" reward can be given in exchange for a
donation. While most of us see the benefit of such a drug to the "human race"
I really think the success of kickstarter is due to its premise that your
donation is reciprocated by the recipient.

With that said, wow, this drug 'sounds' extremely promising, and I hope to
everything holy that it can do the miracles it advertises.

~~~
lutusp
> I'm just wondering what "direct" reward can be given in exchange for a
> donation.

The majority of true science proceeds without thought of compensation, except
in the sense that science advances and humanity benefits. Such is true in this
case.

