The film highlights the potential impact of your research — including an incredible result for one patient – but how do you define impact in cancer science?
I’m a clinician-scientist so I’m biased. I will always think that the true measure of impact is in the improvements we make to peoples’ lives.
But what we actually mean by improvement is subjective, as I discovered with Trevor’s story. In my 20-plus years of phase I trials, only a handful of patients have started an experimental drug with end-stage cancer and left in complete remission. He was one. The results of his PET scan came as a surprise both of us. When I told Trevor his report showed complete remission, we were both so stunned that we were oblivious to the cameraman circling around us.
The documentary featured Trevor’s family and his backstory – watching it made me re-evaluate the impact of what we do. We talk about a person’s “quality of life” as quite an abstract concept but there are so many parts of life that contribute to its quality: relationships, holiday plans, hobbies, everything. The texture of life is at least as important as its duration.
Why do you think storytelling and media exposure is important for accelerating cancer research?
When anyone starts talking to me about financial planning, I switch off. I know it’s really important, but I can’t help myself. We can easily forget that other people feel like that about science. Their eyes glaze over, we’ve lost them. Story-telling and metaphors are powerful tools, if only just to embed a tiny bit more information. Otherwise, we offer nothing but white noise.
The documentary was cleverly edited so each chunk of information was buffered with illustrations and patient narratives. Although I’m a fan of metaphors, some concepts elude simplification, like trying to explain mRNA in a bite-sized way. Is it a coincidence that the most “hard to explain” bits of biology are the ones that end up attracting the greatest public suspicion?
Source link
