Why do scientists often CLAIM they will make a great discovery?

In a recent thread ("I don't pretend to understand...") Todd1963 cites an article in which some scientists claim they have found a cancer-fighting method that will produce a surefire cancer cure in maybe a year.

While we all hope this is true, the scepticism about those scientists and their method is already out there. For instance,

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6644577/a-cure-cancer-year-israeli-scientists-say-critics-warn-findings-thin.html

Which leads me to the point of this thread. Why is it that in the sciences, and it seems especially true in medical research, that scientists will so often go public with an announcement in the form: "Hey, everybody, we've got this really great method, we're sure it's going to work, and it's really going to be amazing! Well, no, it hasn't been proven yet, but give us a year, and the results will be astounding!"

So why don't they just go ahead and do all the work first, run trials, etc., get the results that back them up, and then make the announcement, now having the data to back themselves up?

Maybe I don't understand because I'm not a scientist. But in my own area of Humanities I would never see a letter-to-the-editor in a journal, saying something like "Hey, I'm going to do this great study on the Iliad of Homer, it'll be in this journal a year from now, and you'll love it!"

No, no! In the Humanities, we just do all the work first, and then publish the paper and tell the world about it.

I did a little research on the web, and so far I have found no discussion as to why the sciences, again medical research in particular, so often behave in this way.

Is it because the researchers are dropping hints that they think they are really on to something, and any foundation that would like to contribute a little financial assistance to cover the coming year's research would be welcome? Are they "marking their territory," saying in effect we are the ones working on this now, and other researchers need to find their own research topic?"

One does see this, and I wonder why all this "pre-announcement" of success takes place. I imagine it must be rather embarrassing if the whole thing winds up flopping a year later. But maybe they assume no one will remember their bold claims from a year earlier.

Any thoughts?

Just a guess, but I think you hit it. They probably need funding to continue their work, but to keep their publicly traded companies alive until they have a product, so they seek out positive publicity to motivate investors

Remember the Cold Fusion debacle from 25 years ago? I think it’s considered a case study for this sort of behavior.

All the above responses are valid. But I must point out that the 'story' was written by a journalist (not a scientist) associated with the Jerusalem Post. Furthermore, most (medical) scientists do not misuse the press to such a flagrant extent. Most universities and medical institutions have press offices, but the general rule is to wait with a press release until the related paper has passed editorial review. Small biotechs that are desperately trying to get more funding may put out press releases or get publicity in some other way. And they wait until a patent application has been filed.

Post Edited (Sr Sailor) : 1/29/2019 2:51:16 PM (GMT-7)

Sr. Sailor, that is a great observation. When we see breathless medical "news" of a discovery, it is almost always in what used to be called the popular press, not in some scientific journal, and usually written by a "science writer", not the scientists themselves.

Reputable science researchers are very hesitant to predict their outcomes publicly, because they ARE well aware of the cold fusion fiasco. (which is a case study in more than one way: follow up researchers did note that SOMETHING unexplained was happening, but because of the way it began, no one is willing to fund a deeper dig.)

81GyGuy, you seem to have nothing better to do...searching the internet for cancer cures! Why don't you go back to the last time YOU posted a similar thread at HW/PC about the latest possible, proposed cure for cancer and do a little research on where their progress is. Have they cured cancer? Did they cut funding for that project? Did some pharma company buy-up the intellectual rights so that they could just sit on it? Maybe some other conspiracy theory?

Two years ago, you posted this thread: "Coley's toxins": the future cure for cancer?

Let us know if in the last two years they cured cancer.

It's probably the case that most people have heard the old adage attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Well, I think a useful variation on that might just be:

"You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can't please all the people all the time."

Not that I even want to! Quite frankly, in all the time that I have been making threads here, I have always been satisfied when there has been a mix of opinions about them.

That tells me the topics had enough significance to them that they generated some interest, even controversy, and were thus probably threads worth making.

So, actually, thank you, Blackjack, for your comments. Something got you to thinking enough to respond, and to keep the discussion going, offering a different perspective. And that's good.

And thank you too, Pratoman, for your thoughts on the matter.

Two posts in a row with two different messages.

I think I would be a very boring poster if all I did was post things that brought universal approval.

Andrew - I've always thought that a good poem is a great answer to a LOT of things!

As far as offering commentary on the value, determined maybe over time, of certain "cures" for cancer that have been publicized over the web, or even just supposedly better treatments, I don't have the background for doing that.

At least not the medically specialized, technically knowledgable background that I believe you are talking about.

It was rather my intention simply to create awareness of some of the things that are out there. And, frankly, I was perhaps hoping that some of the other posters here, persons more knowlegable than I in these matters, might have insightful comments on how valid some of these "cures" were or were not.

We used to have a particular poster here who would have been very helpful in explaining and evaluating such things as these, but he is gone now, so never mind that.

But in thinking about this, I believe there is something else going on here, beyond the progress or lack of it of any of these "cures."

It's something about these "announcements" of potential cures that was in the back of my mind, but also, unfortunately, something that was rather dark and troubling.

It involves a concerning situation that goes like this. A person with an advanced cancer, whose prognosis is grim, sees one of these so very optimistic announcements, made by responsible medical labs, hospitals, etc., is struck by it, and says to his spouse: "Dear, this could be it! This is what could save me!"

And he begins to follow news of the new "cure," with his hopes of perhaps entering a clinical trial for it, and such, and eventually being helped by this new "cure."

But then time begins to pass, and he starts to hear less and less about this "cure" that had been so highly promoted, again by medically responsible entities, and word about it finally goes away, and eventually his hopes are dashed.

Is this not a terrible disservice to those in a medically dire situation? Is it not falsely raising hopes, when a newly proposed "cure" is excessively pitched?

I'm not saying it's the fault of the research lab, or the hospitals, or the doctors putting a positive, but not excessive, spin on their proposed "cures." Perhaps they really do believe they will work. But when they don't, there will be those whose dreams of being cured are shattered.

Whether or not people desperate for a cure should "know better" than to believe too strongly is, arguably, compromised by the web ad promising a cancer cure "within a year."

I imagine that kind of situation must also be considered when trying to evaluate the worth, or lack of it, of various "cures" being promoted on the Internet.

Threads that link to possible therapies are common on all disease oriented forums.
As long as the reader realizes that it may be ten years or more for the therapy to become clinically useful, I see no harm in people posting about them. And, as I mentioned in a related thread, the great majority of these (sometimes very) clever initiatives fail.

Post Edited (Sr Sailor) : 1/31/2019 3:16:51 PM (GMT-7)

Yep.