After writing the previous three posts, I have some thoughts about human knowledge and medicine. I reserve the right to change my mind on any of this:
- Human knowledge about matters medical has increased dramatically, but does not double every 5 years
- Medical outcomes have increased human health and longevity, but these outcomes do not 'follow the money,' nor the research
- Managing newly acquired medical knowledge is now the key issue impeding further progress
The second hypothesis I am testing is whether or not the increasing availability of knowledge to a wider population can satisfy the criteria of doubling human knowledge. I believe that medicine may offer strong evidence for this.
The invention of the polio vaccine did not eradicate polio. It was the diffusion of the knowledge about the potential of the vaccine, first to doctors, then to mothers, that made the difference. Nobody has found much of a cure for lung cancer, but in areas where public policy has pushed awareness of the link between smoking and cancer (and social activism has become more militant), smaller percentages of the population continue to smoke, and this has had a beneficial effect.
The same is roughly true regarding the benefits of mammography, checking of the colon and prostate and pap smears. It is pushing the knowledge to the people that has made all the difference. Human life expectancy has risen in the developed countries to between 75 and 84 years of age. One hundred years ago, it was between 42 and 48. Almost all of the difference seems to me to be due to increases in human knowledge, but completely conditional on this knowledge being published and affecting the behaviour of the general public.
Comments