Applying Science to Medicine

In the news these days, we often see a plethora of pseudoscientific, and sometimes even outright anti-scientific, beliefs relating to how we treat people with disease and quality of life issues. Issues like acupuncture, homeopathy and other alternative (read: not medicine, or evidence-lacking) interventions have been put through the ringer scientifically, but have shown little to no effect when it comes to treating someone. Yet, they are still promoted by a cadre of people that adhere to their beliefs like barnacles to a rocky outcropping and have started invading previously respectable institutions with their unsubstantiated beliefs to be propped up next to life-saving techniques that have been tested and proven. That's another post though ...

Too often as scientists we get comfy and so used to the methods at hand that we often take the act of innovation for granted. In essence, we believe in doing things a certain way, just like the pseudoscientists mentioned above. As scientists, we're used to our hypotheses and thoughts changing often as data is released, but once a method is established and "working good enough" we often don't think there's a need to improve or streamline a process even though it may have been decades since the procedure was first implemented. As the saying goes in life as well as science, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Taken to a degree, this is absolutely true. However, sometimes it might be necessary to turn our critical thinking and problem solving skills to older methods in order to bring them up-to-date with current technology and biological understanding.

Carl Zimmer wrote a great piece in the NY Times yesterday about a company that is using our burgeoning understanding of Biomechanics, the application of mechanical principles to biological systems, to make better surgical tools. In a nut shell, this company is working on a new rib-spreader, one that takes into account the physics of bending ribs in order to cut down on the number of broken ribs resulting from opening up the chest cavity for heart surgery and the like. Bones have amazing flexibility and perform well under constant pressure applications. They are most susceptible to breakage if sharp, intense bouts of pressure are applied. Current rib spreaders use a hand crank mechanism that has been used (albeit with a bit of modernization over time) since 1936 and results in an uneven application of pressure as the thoracic cavity is being opened. The benefit to the patient is of course the potential for less pain post-operatively due to broken ribs, a painful experience that sometimes requires pain-killers. For the institution doing the surgery, the potential benefit is less complications from the body reacting to broken bones as well as the intended intervention and also the need for less drug usage to combat the pain from broken ribs. It's win-win no matter which perspective you take.

The conclusion is to always ask "Why?" Is there a good reason that we perform a technique or procedure this way? Is there anything new to take into account? Question everything! Who knows, we may actually stumble onto something that not only saves time, but also leads to a better quality of life for others.