fbpx Research and communication, the preventable uncertainty | Science in the net

Research and communication, the preventable uncertainty

Primary tabs

di Roberto Satolli, Patrizia Pasqui, Mario Spallino
Pubblicato il 01/01/2013Read time: 3 mins

[video:http://youtu.be/8rG3ZfzIb_Y]

The original idea behind this video was born from the conviction that the complex and ten-year illness of Alessandro Liberati  – experienced personally as a patient in every which way, but also looked upon using his skills as a doctor, researcher and a person of authority, with his commitment to financing research -, holds great significance in terms of the explanations provided and represents a not-to-be -missed opportunity to reflect on where medicine and research is currently heading.[1]

In addition to having explored the classic method of written communication relying upon various texts (in Italian and in English, amongst which a memorable letter to BMJ in 2004 [2] and a publication in Lancet just a few weeks before his death, which resembled a testament on morality [3]) Alessandro focused on the idea of a short video which would be able to resonate with the general public, serious yet filled with irony and thoughtfulness, making people laugh on the subjects of serious matters, with the aim of making the viewer reflect on serious issues affecting everybody.

Alessandro Liberati died on the 1st January 2012, before completing his project. Multiple myeloma was the cause of his death, an illness which he had suffered with for over ten years, experiencing asymptomatic stages, repeated bone marrow transplants, remissions, resurgence of the illness and difficult decisions with regards both therapeutic and existential strategy.

The concept of preventable uncertainty”, modeled on the concept of “preventable mortality”, is based upon the statement that uncertainty is a condition which cannot be detached from medicine, in all its forms. This condition is well understood by those directly involved, even if it is not shared by the vast majority of the general public, amongst which, the conviction that contemporary medicine, as a science, is a source of certainty. The research itself, in reality, with everything it brings to light, is always unraveling new scenarios for which there is no data available, and in any case, the evidence, constantly referred to by EBM, is more often than not purely based on probability. When it comes to responding to the question of the ill person “what is going to happen to me?” nobody is ever able to respond with certainty.

Although death is inevitable, we can ensure that it is avoided in the instance of conditions which are presently curable, such as appendicitis or an ulcer. In much the same way, some sources of uncertain pain experienced by those that are ill, which could, and so, should, be avoided. More specifically it would be possible to provide answers to questions if only the necessary testing was completed, and quite differently, there are situations in which the response is already known, but those who should convey the aforementioned do not wish to or do not have the ability to effectively communicate it to the patient. It is upon this basis that the idea to focus on research and communication came about, the aforementioned being the two main elements used to identify the extent of the uncertainty experienced by those who are unwell, and to act in such a way to fight it.

References:
1. In addition to the authors of this text, the following persons, listed in alphabetical order, have contributed throughout the various stages of the "Preventable uncertainty" video project:  Giulia Candiani, Augusto Cavina, Elisa Liberati, Fabrizio Palaferri, Silvio Soldini, Mario Spallino, Mariangela Taricco.
2. Liberati A. An unfinished trip through the uncertainties. BMJ 2004; 328: 531–32.
3. See the performance, Farmageddon: http://www.emergency.it/teatro/farmageddon.html; http://www.scienzaexpress.it/formula-sipario/166-farmageddon.html


Scienza in rete è un giornale senza pubblicità e aperto a tutti per garantire l’indipendenza dell’informazione e il diritto universale alla cittadinanza scientifica. Contribuisci a dar voce alla ricerca sostenendo Scienza in rete. In questo modo, potrai entrare a far parte della nostra comunità e condividere il nostro percorso. Clicca sul pulsante e scegli liberamente quanto donare! Anche una piccola somma è importante. Se vuoi fare una donazione ricorrente, ci consenti di programmare meglio il nostro lavoro e resti comunque libero di interromperla quando credi.


prossimo articolo

Why have neural networks won the Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry?

di Chiara Sabelli
Pubblicato il 15/10/2024

This year, Artificial Intelligence played a leading role in the Nobel Prizes for Physics and Chemistry. More specifically, it would be better to say machine learning and neural networks, thanks to whose development we now have systems ranging from image recognition to generative AI like Chat-GPT. In this article, Chiara Sabelli tells the story of the research that led physicist and biologist John J. Hopfield and computer scientist and neuroscientist Geoffrey Hinton to lay the foundations of current machine learning.

Image modified from the article "Biohybrid and Bioinspired Magnetic Microswimmers" https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/smll.201704374

Physics

The 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to John J. Hopfield, an American physicist and biologist from Princeton University, and to Geoffrey Hinton, a British computer scientist and neuroscientist from the University of Toronto, for utilizing tools from statistical physics in the development of methods underlying today's powerful machine learning technologies.