These two days, a doctor in Guangzhou was arrested for publishing popular science articles, which triggered a heated discussion. Although there is still controversy about the nature of the case, which requires a fair judgment by law, from the perspective of popular science, this incident raises a question for us: as doctors, how should we do popular science?
Science popularization must be scientific.
Popular science is to convey scientific knowledge to the public and answer questions for national health. Therefore, popular science must first conform to science. Without the support of science, it loses its meaning.
Vaccination can prevent diseases, which is a common sense known to all, but in March 20 17, an article "The voice of a conscientious vaccine worker! All parents must watch it! For the sake of children's health, please stay away from vaccines! After the WeChat article spread on the Internet, it caused great repercussions. This article fabricates many dangers of vaccines out of nothing, and many people who eat melons have doubts about the role of vaccines.
In view of such pseudoscientific articles, we must refute them with a lot of scientific knowledge. Many popular science writers write articles to refute and complain. After a large number of reports, the number was named by the management department.
Popular science should have a certain basis.
Although popular science articles are different from academic papers, papers must have a lot of data to prove and support their arguments. Because popular science articles serve the people, they generally don't need profound data and theories, but they need key data and conclusions.
For example, it is rumored on the Internet recently that scientists have discovered a new organ of the human body-stroma, and even reached the conclusion that the human body is the "largest organ". So, what is the concept of organ? Whether this discovery is new or not, after consulting the data, it is confirmed that there was stroma before. This study only found its new function. Interstitial does not conform to the definition of organ, but is actually a kind of tissue of human body. We also consulted the original text, and denied the idea of new organs through the explanation of stroma.
Popular science does not want the title party.
It is understandable that we like to use some novel titles to attract readers' attention when writing articles. An excellent popular science writer will also work hard on the topic. I remember I wrote a popular science article about DNA, which was confirmed by the sex scandal between Clinton and Lewinsky. A prostitute said that she had an affair with Clinton and provided a skirt stained with semen. The title of this article is "Testifying for Clinton: Success is DNA, Failure is DNA", which plays a finishing role.
However, it is inappropriate to label wine as "poisonous" without any basis in the article of Guangzhou doctor. Although we know that there are some poisonous Chinese medicines in this wine, and this wine is also an internationally recognized carcinogen, it is not appropriate to just define it as "poison". If there is inspection evidence from an authoritative department, it can be concluded that it caused many people poisoning or death, and it can only be suspected or suspected before the inspection results come out. Therefore, it is imprudent and unscientific for us to avoid these key evidences and draw the conclusion of "poisoning", and it will also bring us trouble.
It's not easy for doctors to do science popularization, and it's even harder to finish it, but it's even more uneconomical to get into trouble for science popularization. How to grasp the degree of popular science is a problem that every health science worker should think about. I hope the lessons of doctors in Guangzhou can inspire us. (Text/Ji Guangwei, Chief Physician of the Second Staff Hospital of WISCO)
Do popular science on the premise of reasonable evidence
I was surprised to see the news that doctors were chased across provinces for writing popular science. It's really hard to understand how this happened.
Popular science is first and foremost the popularization of science, which is based on science. In fact, science is to build a hypothetical and verified system with data support. For example, to treat a disease, we need to explore the treatment rate scientifically and speak with data, not by feeling and experience. Western medicine, the core of modern medicine at present, is actually data thinking, such as height, weight and blood pressure, which are all data results analyzed by statistical methods. Now many breakthrough treatments are also like this. Make a hypothesis or assumption first, then do clinical research, verify before and after, and finally get data and even guidelines.
Before this data, combined with personal experience, everyone will have a lot of controversy. This doctor thinks it is appropriate, and so does that doctor, because with strong data, such disputes will be unified. For example, in the past, we treated colon cancer. Many years ago, a patient said that I had chemotherapy once a year and then continued chemotherapy for more than ten years. This situation existed in the past. Later, with the support of new data, six cycles of chemotherapy is enough. According to the latest literature, in some cases, three cycles of chemotherapy is enough.
In fact, this is an academic controversy. Before a question is clarified, everyone has his own opinion. This is an inclusive mentality and is also allowed. The same is true of popular science. You can have different views on the same medical problem or medical knowledge. But this view should be based on research. If there is no basis, then what you write can't be called popular science, only your personal opinion. I once heard an expert say that writing a popular science article is almost as difficult as writing an academic paper. You need to read a lot of literature and then convert it into easy-to-understand language and articles.
Society should tolerate individual academic views and allow academic contention as long as it does not violate the law. If it is illegal, it should be handled in accordance with relevant laws. Popular science is also related to people's ability. Different people's ability to write popular science is different. Some people have a sense of humor, while others have a sense of security. Some people are good at using metaphors and quoting classics. The popular saying now is to work in the competence circle and study outside the competence circle. In fact, the same is true of popular science writing. You should write according to your major, and writing articles across majors is relatively unprofessional.
Medicine should have the spirit of questioning. Of course, it is not enough to have a questioning spirit. You must organize information and read some documents to support your questions. Good science popularization must come from the clinic and serve the clinic well. For example, we met a patient with acute appendicitis during pregnancy before, and I told him the seriousness of the illness at that time. The patient said, you don't have to tell me so much. I have read your popular science article about appendicitis during pregnancy before, and I can understand what you said. This is the charm of popular science articles, which makes them serve many patients silently.
Of course, the health care products market is mixed. As a professional doctor, we should give full play to our professional knowledge and talents, spread more medical science on the premise of being well-founded, guide the public to develop a healthy lifestyle, and realize the goal of a healthy China. (Text/Beijing Tiantan Hospital General Surgery Lin Yi)