As a haematologist, I find my faith in how well something is going to work is often inverse to how new or expensive it is. Whereas I see many patients who really seem to put faith in a phase II drug or something only recently licensed. New and expensive doesn't necessarily mean good.
When your average outcome is bad, taking the high volatility / uncertain choice looks pretty good.
If you're behind by a couple of strokes in golf near the end of the course, you take some risky shots you wouldn't ordinarily take. They probably won't pay off, but they're the only remaining way to "win".
Exactly. When there's no better choice you take the hail mary shot. Even when the average outcome is "worse" it can make sense. Docs say you have 3 months left. There's an option that probably shortens your life to 2 months, but has a 1% chance of curing you. Average outcome-negative. Worth considering? Yes.
The promise of a miracle fix is understandably alluring. I wonder how many people in such dire situations want to take part in efforts to spare other people their suffering.
This. Had an acquaintance who got a diagnosis of lung cancer stage IV, was told that otherwise she would die in a month and was offered an experimental treatment at one of the very famous cancer hospitals. She took the treatments, promptly swelled up to twice her size, lost consciousness and expired w/o coming to.
<sarcasm>Wow, I thought, that really must have helped reduce some other persons' suffering! All hail to the experimenter who cooked up her treatment! <sarcasm>
Somewhere in my recent readings doctors were characterized as sadists (I thought HN but can't find the post). Cancer treatment experimenters may be prime candidates for that characterization, which sadly seems more explanatory than I would like.
I don't think this necessarily implies a lack of faith in progress. If 1 out of 10 new drugs is a miracle drug, that means it's wise not to place faith in any one trial drug, while still being hopeful that advances are being made overall.
