The New York Times headline told a fantastic story: a doctor’s treatment
of infecting cancer patients with “toxins” had cured more than 100
people during the past 15 years. The therapy was so effective, it was
being used in “almost every country where the medical profession is in
an advanced state of progress.” That article was published on July 29, 1908.
The
doctor who created the therapy, William B. Coley, first noticed in the
1890s that cancer patients who also had infections tended to have better
outcomes than those who did not. It wasn’t the first time
in human history that the connection between infections curing cancer has been observed. Imhotep, an ancient Egyptian physician who lived 4,600 years ago, recommended patients with tumors make a poultice and then an incision, which would likely lead to an infection, and in some cases, shrinkage or disappearance of the tumor.
in human history that the connection between infections curing cancer has been observed. Imhotep, an ancient Egyptian physician who lived 4,600 years ago, recommended patients with tumors make a poultice and then an incision, which would likely lead to an infection, and in some cases, shrinkage or disappearance of the tumor.
But
since the results of “Coley’s Toxins,” were inconsistent and the
mechanism of action not understood, the medical community first doubted
his real-world results, and eventually, turned its attention to newer
innovations such as radiation and chemotherapy. It would take another
century before what we now call immunotherapy to rise again in
prominence as a potential treatment for cancer.
I
bring this up to demonstrate how predictions for the future of science
and technology are more often wrong than right, in some cases
spectacularly so. New innovations can push aside more effective
treatments, simply because they’re new. In other situations, we fail to
understand why something works, or fail to recognize a better use in an
entirely different field.
“Predictions for the future of science and technology are more often wrong than right, in some cases spectacularly so.”
Still,
the exercise of attempting to peer into the future is useful, because
it pushes us to assess where we are and determine where we want to go.
What are the technologies, innovations and trends that will catalyze
change? Are we on the right path, or are there opportunities we should
be taking greater advantage of?
Johnson
& Johnson Innovation asked these questions earlier this year at a
couple of events in San Francisco. The participants, a mix of industry
leaders, entrepreneurs and investors, discussed and debated what trends
could have the biggest impact on the healthcare industry.
The
resulting conversation captured the concerns, hopes and predictions for
the future of healthcare. We distilled these ideas into a publication,
called the Trending in Healthcare Report.
The content delves into the rapid advance of technology in the 21st
century and how that could change our industry, which at times
stubbornly clings to practices that originated in the 19th century.
Below are the four main trends that emerged from this discussion:
No comments:
Post a Comment