* “You Don’t Hate Polyamory, You Hate People Who Write Books.” Notice: “Advice is disproportionately written by defective people. Healthy people perform naturally and effortlessly.” And many other interesting remarks about the types of people inclined in certain ways.
* “The cost of Russia’s collapsing empire.” Russia is committing a murder-suicide: it’s likely destroying Ukraine, but it’s also destroying itself. Between the literal death on the battlefield and the displacement of millions of people to other, more stable and functional countries, both Ukraine and Russia face massive depopulation. Anyone smart has either gotten out of Russia or has been trying to get out of Russia for more than a century. That dynamic continues today. Who will be left? Hardly anyone.
* “As Much As You Ever Wanted To Know About 155mm Artillery Shell Production and More.” This is an article about complacency; notice: “[T]he DOD is attempting to plug the Ukraine-sized hole with shells from allied nations including Canada, South Korea, Finland, and Germany—places where it’s still possible to build new things.” Germany is a place that allows the building of new things? If we’re being outcompeted by Germany, that’s bad. Much of what Rob writes here applies to the FDA too:
What troubles me here, though, is that the US is pursuing that option [of having allies make weapons] because the domestic defense industrial base, inclusive of DOD and its contractors, is sclerotic. It treats time like it’s free. It does not respond quickly.
On Jan. 29 I wrote in The dead and dying at the gates of oncology clinical trials: “The FDA has created systemic problems, and it can also create systemic solutions. For example, the FDA doesn’t really account for the time-value of money,[3] which is especially important in a high-interest-rate environment.” The time-value of money is a basic finance/investment idea. If the federal government is incapable of incorporating it into analysis and plans, that speaks poorly of its ability to do just about anything.
* You’ve heard of lab grown meat, are you ready for rice-grown beef?” That’s cool. “After 9-11 days, they say the rice became a safe, usable ingredient that contained 8% more protein and 7% more fat than regular rice.” When I wore a blood-glucose monitor acquired through Levels Health, I was shocked by how much even brown rice spiked my blood glucose.
* Against gerontocracy. We keep voting for gerontocracy, though—in some ways literally, in elections, and in other ways when e.g. corporate boards favor the elderly. Note:
In 1890, James Frazer – author of the landmark anthropological study of comparative religion, The Golden Bough – came to the conclusion that our ancient predecessors were in many respects wiser than us. They knew that gerontocracy was an age-old form of human organization, and they often embraced it, but they also put limits on rule by the old, especially rule by the faltering and senile, who were not only dispossessed of their power, but also often marked for death at an appointed time.
* “The Loss of Things I Took for Granted: Ten years into my college teaching career, students stopped being able to read effectively.” Have things changed that much? Since 2008, I’ve not noticed big changes, and most people don’t seem to read carefully for comprehension. But the people who do are the most interesting! I’ll also note that too few people in education seem to focus on reading, writing, and math skills.
* “Creating video from text: Sora is an AI model that can create realistic and imaginative scenes from text instructions.” Incredible. I hope OpenAI builds the machine god fast.
* From Nature: “Forget lung, breast or prostate cancer: why tumour naming needs to change: The conventional way of classifying metastatic cancers according to their organ of origin is denying people access to drugs that could help them.” Notice: “To improve treatments for people with metastatic cancer, the community urgently needs to shift from using organ-based classifications of cancer to using molecular-based ones. This will require radical changes in how medical oncology is structured, conducted and taught.” Plus, this is consistent with my low view of the FDA’s current drug-denial regime:
For about a decade, millions of people with tumours expressing high levels of PD-L1 were not able to access relevant drugs because trials had not yet been conducted for their type of cancer when they became unwell. Those with certain breast or gynaecological cancers expressing PD-L1 had to wait 7–10 years to access PD1 inhibitors.
And how many people died while waiting? Why aren’t those estimates considered by the FDA?
* From my wife, Bess: “In defense of boring. An exciting story.” The start of the second paragraph still makes me laugh: “‘You’re boring,’ declares Dr. Sacco, Jake’s oncologist.”
* “Interview: Sarah C. Paine: A scholar of the 20th century explains the conflicts of the 21st.” Impressive and thorough.
* “Taylor Swift, Donald Trump and the Right’s Abnormality Problem.” I don’t find football interesting—George will allegedly described it, memorably, as: “Football combines two of the worst things in American life. It is violence punctuated by committee meetings”—and Taylor Swift’s music is fine (“Bad Blood” is catchy), though I’m not her target audience. Yet this gets at something vital, though maybe not dispositive, if one is to believe polls. Another version of the argument may be found in “Taylor Swift Democrats: Conservatives are losing the ‘don’t be weirdos’ contest.”
* The end of Vitalik’s childhood. “[W]atching all of these people go further than I did, younger than I did, made me clearly realize that if that was ever my role, it is no longer.”
* How’d China come to dominate electric cars? Without Tesla, China would likely totally rule the electric car market. Tesla is among the most important companies, ever.
* “GoFundMe Is a Health-Care Utility Now: Resorting to crowdfunding to pay medical bills has become so routine, in some cases health professionals recommend it.” A problem and challenge I feel acutely. I love the mealy-mouthed bureaucratic responses from the hospitals.
Before the May 25 cancer surgery that took my tongue, I’d been lifting weights, steadily but poorly, for a decade, and that habit is in part responsible for me pulling through the horrific aftermath of the surgery. The more physically robust a person is, the greater the margin for pain and for recovery—and I feel like I barely made it through the long, brutal surgical recovery period, which constituted the whole summer, followed by chemo in July and August, and then by an indolent infection in September and October. I weighed 175 lbs before my first cancer surgery, in October 2022, and bottomed out in the 133 – 136 range last summer. Now I’m hovering between 138 – 142, despite extensive, annoying, continuous efforts to eat more, via both mouth and feeding tube injection. Eating can be a pleasure or pain, but eating for weight gain isn’t fun, particularly when the weight gain is elusive.
For months, food has stolen too much focus from me, because I need to avoid missing meals to maximize calories. Did I just wake up? Time to make a smoothie, or blend some leftovers, and then inject a bag of Liquid Hope through my feeding tube. Is the sun scooching past its zenith, which means lunch time is a little behind me? Then some calories need to go in. Are we getting past 8:00 p.m.? That’s a potential problem because of acid reflux if I lie down too soon after eating. Whatever else I’m doing, or learning, or concentrating on, there’s an annoying cognitive process weighing my food needs running in the back of my mind. Weight training can help me gain weight, yes, but to make the weight training effective, I have to consume enough calories—with “enough” tending to mean “somewhat more than I’ve been able to ingest on any given day.” Since I can’t chew or swallow normally, food must be blended with water for either injection or swallowing, and water reduces caloric density.
Eating is important, but, as noted, I hope to augment food with lifting. Before that first surgery, I could rep 145 lb on the squat fairly easily, and I was working my deadlift reps towards 225 lbs—”two plates,” in meathead parlance.[1] Not a lot, but better than no training. When I got back into the gym maybe a month after my first partial glossectomy in November 2022, I felt like I could barely lift my arms, and had to re-start with the bar on the squat rack, and 15 lbs training bumpers on either side of the deadlift hex bar. I started re-building as best I could, though I knew that radiation therapy would probably knock me back again.
In being knocked back, I feel some kinship with the totality of humanity. For most of human existence, humans have been building up all kinds of tribes, structures, and/or civilizations, only to be knocked back by weather, climate change, internal dissension, greed, barbarians, technological regression, disease, or some other force. It’s only since the Industrial Revolution that humans have managed to mostly transcend the condition of agricultural misery and paucity, though we might wind up in such horrifying conditions again, via nuclear war or plague or some other malady. As individuals, we’re less robust than contemporary societies or cultures, and we’re prone to setbacks like the ones I’ve experienced. I suspect that how a person responds to setbacks says something about them; my view is that the appropriate response to adversity is to persist, even futilely, even as one possibly rages against the dying light.
That philosophical outlook is evident in me going to the gym despite feeling wretched and janky. To not go is to risk not replenishing my margin for future, and (realistically) inevitable setbacks. To not go means there is worse to come. Sure, as long as the clinical trial drug petosemtamab keeps working, I can probably hover in the 140 lbs range without risk of organ failure or starvation. Apart from being skeletally thin, the other worry is the next bump in the road. What if I need another surgery? What if there’s more chemo in my future—which I expect before the end, even if “more chemo” is an effort to hold the line as I exit one clinical trial and before beginning another? What if a clinical-trial drug causes nausea? What if re-irradiation comes, and the pain that already accompanies swallowing worsens? I list the known unknowns: the unknown unknowns are infinite.
As I write this, I take a break to check my weight: 140.1 lbs. Not great but could be worse. The last week hasn’t been ideal regarding the gym : on Monday I was wrapped up in a project, Tuesday I flew to San Diego and got settled there, Wednesday I had a petosemtamab infusion, Thursday I flew home, Friday I withdrew from the prescribed dexamethasone—a steroid—that is supposed to help prevent infusion reactions to petosemtamab, and today, Saturday, I finally got in to do overhead press, hangs, and the leg press. I should’ve squatted but delayed, making excuses. The fire that used to inspire me to pump iron is gone. Meatheads speak of the “pump” when they lift; Arnold Schwarzenegger described it in Pumping Iron:
The greatest feeling you can get in a gym or the most satisfying feeling you can get in the gym is the pump. Let’s say you train your biceps, blood is rushing in to your muscles and that’s what we call the pump. Your muscles get a really tight feeling like your skin is going to explode any minute and its really tight and its like someone is blowing air into your muscle and it just blows up and it feels different, it feels fantastic. It’s as satisfying to me as cumming is, you know, as in having sex with a woman and cumming. So can you believe how much I am in heaven? I am like getting the feeling of cumming in the gym; I’m getting the feeling of cumming at home; I’m getting the feeling of cumming backstage; when I pump up, when I pose out in front of 5000 people I get the same feeling, so I am cumming day and night. It’s terrific, right? So you know, I am in heaven.
I personally haven’t experienced the level of, um, endorphin rush that Arnold describes—I suspect few people do, or gyms would be packed—but I’ve gotten a pale imitation of the physical satisfaction he cites. My occupations have been thinky and sedentary, and running or lifting contrasts with sitting in the chair or standing and typing. Unfortunately, whatever physical pleasures lifting once brought have dissipated. Now, it’s more chore than not. An important chore, but a chore. It used to be fun. I used to know how to make it fun. I’m sad that that sense of fun is gone, and I’ve not really been able to rekindle it.
* “On conditional approval for human drugs.” This will almost certainly be too late for me, but it would be a real step forward—as Alex writes: “Dare I say it, but could the FDA be lumbering in the right direction?” I hope so. I’ve been encouraging it to lumber in that direction. Particularly in oncology drugs, not making the process for people with fatal diagnoses to try even long-shot drugs easy is madness. It should be criminal. If I’m going to die anyway, why not try something unusual? The drug I’m on now, petosemtamab, should’ve been approved for recurrent / metastatic squamous cell carcinoma at least ten months ago, if not longer. Give us the right to try! I’m almost certainly going to die of squamous cell carcinoma anyway; might as well find out if any of the drugs coming out of labs work. Drugs to treat fatal diseases are not like drugs to treat some dubious ailments like high cholesterol, or ailments like depression in which it’s hard to say if any of the drugs available really work.
* “Irene Bosch developed a quick, inexpensive COVID-19 test in early 2020. The Harvard-trained scientist already had a factory set up. But she was stymied by an FDA process experts say made no sense.” The FDA is killing more people than it’s helping / “protecting,” a theme you’ll also see in the link above. And the collective response to this is to shrug, and go back to pointless culture wars.
The disappointment I feel mostly concerns food. You can find pretty good food in America at fairly high prices, but you will never be able to find mindblowing food at the cost of a few dollars — which is the default in Asia. Americans who have never been to Asia will never appreciate how one never needs to cook, because right outside will be a mom-and-pop shop that is preparing a meal that is one order of magnitude tastier and cheaper than one could make at home.
Maybe one day cooking at home will be as peculiar or rare growing all of one’s food at home. Gains from trade and specialization are real!
I think the U.S. is too heavily invested in parking lots to generate sufficient proximity to restaurants to in turn generate the possibility of mindblowing food at relatively low prices.
* The culture of Boeing, and what happens when engineers aren’t in charge. Facebook/Meta seems to work well in part because it’s kept the MBAs out.
* Scientists at Strand Therapeutics Will Test a Cancer-Hunting mRNA Treatment. This is great. Unfortunately for me, their first clinical-trial drug appears to be a tumoral-injection drug, which would work for the tumors in my neck but is probably not ideal for the tumors in my lungs. Their pipeline page lists STX-003 as a systemic interleukin-12 (“IL-12”) therapy that is in preclinical development, and the indication is for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), since sticking needles into the lungs is not ideal. There’s already an IL-2 therapy called SAR444245, being tested as “THOR-707,” but the last wave of IL-2 trials didn’t seem to go well. Biology is hard. This sort of failure is also why I’m leery of many phase 1a trials.
* Massive lithium deposits found in the U.S. Whatever you read about lithium shortages is likely BS. The biggest problem in the U.S. is NEPA, the National Environmental Protection Act, which, despite its name, often does net harm to the environment—like many putative environmentalists.
* “Why do people post on [bad platform] instead of [good platform]?” By Dan Luu, and a topic I’ve also wondered about. The information density of text is still so much greater than video, and the production costs so much lower, that I find the shift to video dumb. But I find a lot of common behaviors and choices dumb. Maybe I am the dumb one.
I was reading Tyler Cowen and Daniel Gross’s book Talent: How to Identify Energizers, Creatives, and Winners Around the World, and in it they write: “You can open doors for other people at relatively low cost (perhaps zero cost) to yourself just by making some options more vivid to them.… You embody something, and that something will stir some others into action” (237). That’s a lot of what Bess and I are doing when we write about clinical trials, where getting the wrong answer means death: thus, our extensive focus on it, and the healthcare system more broadly. We’re trying to open doors, especially for people who are sick or who don’t realize what their options are.
Right now, according to “The pharma industry from Paul Janssen to today: why drugs got harder to develop and what we can do about it,” apparently “Only 6% of cancer patients take part in clinical trials nationally in the US, for instance, and the number is generally lower in other countries and for other conditions.” A lot of cancer patients don’t need clinical trials and are healed by existing treatments, but, even granting that standard-of-care often works, 6% seems low—it may be low because of poor guidance combined with fatalism. If my experience is representative,[1] a lot of cancer patients aren’t getting adequate help understanding the system and finding a trial. Bess and I only succeeded in finding a clinical trial to keep me alive because of our own perseverance and obsessiveness; we were explicitly encouraged by multiple oncologists not to bother and to let me die. My primary oncologist at the Mayo Clinic Phoenix offered zero guidance, aid, or advice. I can’t tell how common this is, though feedback so far seems to indicate the answer might be “pretty common.” For a normal person without some of our traits, background, and resources, getting an optimal clinical trial would be far harder, if not impossible—and it was already hard for us. I’m still puzzled that more people with poor prognoses on standard-of-care treatments aren’t working to get the best clinical trials they can.
What’s the barrier? Mindset, and discouragement from oncologists, is probably one problem. A guy named Richard Chen, whose profile says he wrote two books on clinical trial recruitment, said: “First, FDA’s remit is not, and has never been, to get therapies to patients.” He also said: “Its primary mission first and foremost, is to prevent unsafe drugs from injuring patients.” If the FDA’s remit isn’t to get therapies to patients, that’s bad, and its remit should change. The second comment is pure, unintentional comedy. Right now, I’m a dead man walking. The FDA is preventing “unsafe” drugs from injuring me, so that I can be “injured”—which is to say, killed—by a recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma infestation. If I’m injured or killed by a drug, that’s not so different from my ultimate trajectory anyway, and the knowledge that can be created from my situation might accelerate treatments and save the next guy’s life.
Despite extreme information problems and a complete absence of federal oversight, surgery seems to work well. Compared to similar patients on the waiting list, 2.3 million life years were saved by organ transplants over 25 years. The WHO claims that “surgical interventions account for 13% of the world’s total disability-adjusted life years.” Coronary artery surgery extends lifespan by several years for $2300 a year. Cataract surgery and LASIK can massively improve quality of life for a few thousand dollars.
Regarding drugs, particularly drugs for people who are already effectively dead, like me, we should be moving closer to a surgical model.
I think Chen is a smart and well-meaning person. But he’s so bureaucratized, and he’s so imbibed the FDA’s line, that he doesn’t realize the Kafkaesque absurdity of telling me, a dying man who’s failed all standard therapies, that the FDA is protecting me from potentially unsafe drugs, so that I can safely die of cancer. If the FDA didn’t flex their paternalism quite so aggressively, terminal patients could at least consent to try something that might help them, which is better odds than trying nothing and waiting for a certain end. Look, if the FDA wants to have long trial periods for dubious drugs like those meant to lower cholesterol or whatever, fine. Once a person has a fatal diagnosis, however, that person is probably, like me, a lot more inclined to take a flyer on what’s available and see what happens. And we should be allowed to do that. We’re terminal, not without capacity. If the FDA’s remit is, ultimately, preventing patient injury, maybe they should ask themselves if they’re causing injury with their current approach?
Knowledge among patients and oncologists seems to be another barrier, according to “Why drugs got harder to develop:”
Many patients are willing to take part in clinical trials in principle, but awareness is poor. About 50% of the time when patients are invited to clinical trials they accept, but 90% are never invited to participate, mainly because most patients are not treated in settings that conduct trials. Patients are also not necessarily aware of or educated about the benefits of trials, and how they may enable them to access a high standard of care. Leading clinical research centres often have too many studies and not enough patients. When it comes to the trial itself, the site may be far from where the patient lives, requiring them to travel or even relocate for the duration of the trial — without adequate support for doing so.
Poor awareness is consistent with my experience—no one explicitly told me to seek clinical trials. Bess writes about the dearth of oncologists referring their patients to clinical trials in “Please be dying but not too quickly: part three” and I’ve written about this issue as well, but, as I mentioned above, if I’d followed my then-oncologist’s guidance, I’d have done some palliative chemo and then died. That doesn’t seem like an optimal outcome. If I die, Bess will be lonely. In spaces like oncology, I’d expect patients to be more like me—that is, highly motivated to attempt to not die. I don’t wholly understand what’s going on, which is why I titled my last essay on the subject “Puzzles about oncology and clinical trials.”
I guess (or infer from behavior) that most oncologists aren’t penalized or rewarded for helping their patients find and enter clinical trials. In the emergency room, a doctor who routinely misses heart attacks or strokes will find his or her license attacked and him or herself in a court room. In oncology, there’s apparently no real effort to consistently help patients who’ve exhausted standard treatments. It’s not, I guess, part of the professional elements of the profession, which I find surprising. Sure, many patients are likely elderly and too sick to pursue clinical trials, but a fair number must be like me: motivated and able to undertake somewhat arduous efforts to prevent or delay death.
One reason too few people participate may be logistical:
To get enough patients to fill up large trials companies need to conduct trials at multiple sites. The more sites involved in a trial, the greater the logistical complexities involved in coordinating that the protocol is executed appropriately across sites, the data is collected to a good standard, and the drug is distributed to all sites as needed. This all increases costs. More sites also increases variance in execution, and improper trial conduct can delay or even sink a development program. According to data from Tufts university, >80% of trials fail to recruit on time, actual enrolment times are typically around double the planned timelines, and ~50% of terminated trials result from recruitment failures. An estimated 11% of trial sites fail to recruit a single patient, and another 37% don’t reach their target enrollment criteria.
There are efforts to create “virtual” trial sites—in other words, to allow clinical trials to proceed at local sites that reach some minimum threshold of competence. To use myself as an example, if the petosemtamab trial I’m doing at UCSD included a real virtual site component, petosemtamab could be shipped to HonorHealth in Scottsdale or one of the Ironwood Cancer Centers in Chandler, and I could receive my infusions and monitoring locally, with the data reported to UCSD and/or Merus (the drug company). Although that would mean “more sites involved in a trial,” it also means less responsibility at each site. The “recruitment failures” issue is interesting in light of the fact that almost no trial sites seem to do basic, modern marketing.
I’m not hugely optimistic about fomenting real change. Real change is slow in a society like the United States, which has been characterized since the 1970s overwhelmingly by complacency, stasis, and status-quo bias. One sees that in our inability to build new housing, our inability to build new ships for the Navy, our refusal to accelerate subway development, our preference for interminable litigation over infrastructure, the Jones Act, the FDA, dishonest and tuition-seeking universities, and the innumerable other veto players who, like Richard Chen, are great at saying “no” and unable to say “yes.” I hope we can build O’Neill Habitats that will allow a re-opening of the frontier and a new space where the dreamers who are tired of hearing “no” can instead create a new polity where it’s possible to say “yes.” The United States is huge on safetyism instead of true safety—and human flourishing.[2] We can and should do better. I doubt we will, however, because the people who most need FDA reform are dead. They’re not writing. They’re not doing podcasts. They’re not agitating Congress.
Still, sometimes change happens, and the bureaucratic inertia is somehow overcome. For example, voucher and charter schools seem to continue to ascend, despite entrenched and intense monied union interests opposing them, and decades after their intellectual foundations were laid. Marijuana legalization seemed unlikely until it happened. Psychedelics look like they’re on the path to medical legalization, at the very least, and possible general legalization; based on my experiences, psychedelics are both safer and far more interesting than alcohol. SpaceX has revolutionized the space game, and I’d have incorrectly predicted failure. Tesla is the sole bulwark against state-affiliated and subsidized Chinese companies owning the entire electric car market. Who knows what’s possible? I don’t hope for this, but if someone in some senator or senior house member’s family gets cancer, and that senator or house member learns what I’ve learned, FDA reform might become a vital issue for that person. Few people I’ve seen online have defended the current system (there are some—just not a lot).
The fact that the current ossified, slow system has persisted as long as it has is an argument for it continuing. Good enough is good enough, right? Moreover, the way the press responds to events helps perpetuate stasis: if a drug has negative side effects, including potentially death, that gets plastered all over the news. Investigations are launched. Scapegoats are sought. If a drug works, and saves lives, the response is muted. The articles go unread. The beneficiaries are happy but don’t start campaigning for more and better medical treatment, faster. One person who dies from a drug outweighs one hundred who might be saved by another. It reminds me of all the press given to any kind of airline accident, even one without casualties, while 40,000 people a year die in car crashes, without most of them making headlines.
An extraordinarily damning overview of the way things operate currently, that puts everything we complain about from within the industry into perspective. Thanks for sharing this Brad [Hightower—mentioned above] – as you say, a must read that underlines how we must all work together to improve things.
It might be a damning overview, but it also turns out that seemingly everyone working in or adjacent to clinical trials knows about the problems already. That includes everyone from the researchers themselves to the drug companies to the hospitals to the oncologists to the support staff. If a lot of people have known for a long time how bad the system is, and no one has managed to coordinate sufficiently to make substantial improvements, that implies that the problems will persist. Can Bess and I be the catalysts that finally galvanize some change? That’d be great, and yet I’m pessimistic. There’s a saying in investing: “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” Call this Seliger’s Law: “A broken system can stay broken for longer than people have the time, energy, and ability to try fixing it.”
Still, Bess and I would like to try to make the world a better place, to the extent we can, and within whatever limits our abilities and skills may impose, and trying to nudge the clinical trial system into a better equilibrium is part of our effort. It’s too late to save my tongue, but it may not be too late to save the tongues and lives of others. In an alternate world, petosemtamab, or a cancer vaccine, would’ve been approved and available in Oct. 2022. I’d have gotten surgery, and then petosemtamab, which is way less toxic than chemotherapy. Maybe that wouldn’t’ve saved my tongue—but maybe it would’ve. Oncologists are reluctant to use chemotherapy, but modern alternatives like petosemtamab should help people like me in the future.
Cancer vaccines exist, though trials are moving achingly slowly. A company called Transgene is testing a cancer vaccine called TG4050 on patients with initial head and neck cancer diagnoses—the same diagnosis I had in Oct. 2022. TG4050 is moving to a Phase 1b and 2 trial; according to the company, “The compelling initial Phase I data presented with NEC at ASCO 2023 showed that all evaluable patients treated with TG4050 monotherapy developed a specific immune response and remained disease-free.” I wish I’d remained disease-free; instead, I have no tongue and am likely to die soon.
Despite my pessimism, “Why drugs got harder to develop” says:
Yet, even though there are major forces pushing against drug developers, there is a sense that the industry is still underperforming, and that it could do more. One reason for optimism can be seen in the recent flattening of the slope of Eroom’s law following decades of declining productivity. It remains to be seen whether the recent uptick is a sustained turnaround or not. The pessimistic view is that it is illusory, a result of how drugmakers have side-stepped fundamental productivity issues by focusing on developing drugs for niche subpopulations with few or no options where regulators are willing to accept less evidence, it’s easier to improve on the standard of care, and payers have less power to push back on higher prices: rare disease and oncology in particular. It’s no coincidence that investment has flowed into areas where regulatory restrictions have been relaxed and accelerated approvals are commonplace: 27% of FDA drug approvals in 2022 were for oncology, the largest therapeutic area category, and 57% were for rare/orphan diseases.
That seems better than nothing. Maybe Congress and/or the FDA is responding to the Richard Chin logic I note above. The FDA has created systemic problems, and it can also create systemic solutions. For example, the FDA doesn’t really account for the time-value of money,[3] which is especially important in a high-interest-rate environment:
As a more general point, it would help if regulators could be more predictable and transparent in their decision making. In a survey of drug and device industry professionals, 68% said that the FDA’s unpredictability discouraged the development of new products. It can be hard to predict how regulators will react to a certain dataset in the context of high unmet need, so companies can be inclined to ‘submit for approval and pray’, even after receiving negative feedback on the data package from regulators during prior interactions.
“Hard to predict” means that many people stop pushing a drug before they start. Companies are competing for investable cash with all other companies; the more time-consuming (read: expensive) the FDA makes the process, the fewer drugs will even be attempted. “Why drugs are harder to develop” suggests the FDA be more accountable to patients:
A straightforward start to improve transparency across the industry would be for the FDA to disclose the formal ‘complete response letters’ (CRLs) issued when they reject a drug which contain the reasons for rejection. Making this information public would give future developers insight into the regulator’s thinking on a disease, with minimal downsides. How companies represent their CRLs to the broader market today is often misrepresentative of the actual reasons for rejection, potentially misleading patients as well as future investors and drug developers in the indication.
I’m not the only one thinking about reform; pretty much everyone in the industry is. To return to a point I raised at the beginning of this essay, reforms could also make clinical trials easier for patients to access. Bess and I spent thousands of dollars and countless hours learning how the clinical trial system works and then how to participate. Initially, no one comprehensively helped us on this journey; my original oncologist at the Mayo Clinic Phoenix was and likely still is sluggish. Mayo Phoenix has a great ENT department but appears to be poor in oncology, which is surprising for an organization with a reputation for cancer care. Bess and I had to learn what we know piecemeal, which is part of the reason we’re trying to describe comprehensively what we’ve learned and how other people’s experiences can be made better.
The best trial for head and neck cancers is petosemtamab, and that trial is being hosted at UCSD. Bess and I are lucky enough to have the resources necessary to get me there twice a month from Arizona for infusions, thanks in large part to the generosity of friends and strangers who’ve contributed to the Go Fund Me. I’ve been saying that being sick for an extended period of time has at least three components to it: health itself; financial well-being; and managing healthcare. Drop any one of the three and the other two are likely to fall too. Very few people can help my health or healthcare directly, but the contributors to the Go Fund Me have made the financial challenges easier.
What’d make things better for everyone, however, is reforms like virtual trial sites. The healthcare team at UCSD has been great, but being infused locally would negate the need to be away from home six days a month, the cost of flights, hotel, and the huge energy expenditure all that entails. The process of getting a clinical trial medication can and should be less expensive and arduous than it is. I can see why most people who might want to participate in the better clinical trials for their illness run out of money and energy to pursue those trials. Bess and I were ready to move anywhere. Fortunately, we’ve not had to move somewhere expensive and far from family and friends. We were ready to, though. We may still have to one day—and maybe, but hopefully not, soon.
Both of us also wish that there were greater transparency around which trials are doing well in terms of patient outcomes and which trials aren’t doing so well. We’ve learned via experience that right now, there’s no substitute for establishing care at a bunch of sites and listening to the oncologists there. Oncologists running trials will often tell you how things are going for trials that’ve been running for a while. If they’re enthusiastic about a trial, it’s often because they see a lot of patients doing well on it. They have observational data that outside docs and institutions have to wait months, maybe years, to get wind of.
Sometimes they’ll also steer patients away from trials that aren’t producing enough positive results. I’m grateful to the docs who’ve quietly advised us against floundering drugs. Some oncologist meetings produce non-public intel about which trials are most promising, provided enough patients have received the drug in question; the oncologists won’t know much if you’re like the first or fifth or tenth human to be dosed with a novel substance, but a lot of these trials have built up years of data. If a site has run through dozens or as many as 100+ patients, the oncologists will have a sense of whether it’s working, even if nothing “official” has been released.
This is one of innumerable tiny facts and practices about effectively participating in clinical trials that we’ve discovered. I’ve never read anyone else who’s put out things like this, just like I’ve never read anything remotely like Bess’s clinical trial guide-essay, “Please be dying, but not too quickly.” Somehow, a lot of this essential information isn’t making it into the larger information ecosystem. The lack of quality information has been driving my writing over the last five months, including my last essay, “On not being a radical medicine skeptic, and the dangers of doctor-by-Internet.” We collectively can and should be doing better. I’m trying to be part of the solution. In reading this, and passing it to others, you’re part of the solution, too.
See also Alex Tabarrok’s “Conditional Approval for Human Drugs,” in which he says “I think that the FDA’s excellent arguments for conditional approval apply to human drugs as well as to (other) animal drugs and even more so when we recognize that human beings have rights and interests in making their own choices.” And he also ends on a hopeful note: “Dare I say it, but could the FDA be lumbering in the right direction?”
[1] Which I hope it isn’t, and yet the emails I’ve been getting indicate that my experience is distressingly common.
[2] The book Where is My Flying Car? by J. Storrs Hall is good on this. We should have so many nuclear power plants that power is almost too cheap to meter, we should have O’Neill Habitats that re-open the political frontier in order to let the non-complacent gather and advance the human condition, and we should have progressed much further in curing cancer and making biology a variable rather than a constant. That we’re content to creep and crawl on the earth rather than soar into the heavens is an indictment of our whole society. Too many lawyers, too few makers.
[3] Bess asked what the time-value of money is. Briefly, it’s how much an investment or investor would lose or gain from alternatives. Take a simple example: you can invest a million dollars in a company running a clinical trial, or in a money-market fund paying 5% a year. If you invest in the money market fund, you wind up with $1,050,000 at the end of the year. If FDA delays cost you a year, you’ve effectively lost the $50,000—you have more like $950,000! Inflation matters in these calculations, too.
This is also why delays to housing construction are so evil.
* Canadian healthcare: “She said she didn’t even see an oncologist with BC Cancer until two-and-a-half months later but at that point, she had already received treatment somewhere else.” I’m aware that there are also U.S. healthcare horror stories. I’ve also learned, the hard way, that for serious matters it’s almost always worth backchecking, as best one can, whatever one is told. That’s been our experience with the clinical trial process, for example, and backchecking doctors is much of the reason I’m 1. still alive at all today and 2. not on (palliative) chemotherapy right now.
Suicide is a one-way valve: once done, it can’t be undone. I’d known the May 25 surgery that took my tongue would be hard and have a long recovery period, but I didn’t understand what “hard” and “long” truly meant, and during that post-operative June and July, when the level of physical misery was not, for me, compatible with life—not long term—I told Bess about “the question.” But if I delayed, the choice could always be made later. Knowing the option for exit remained allowed me to keep living, or whatever that simulacrum of living was, to see how things played out, despite how bleak life was. Many burdens can be borne for a short time, provided that there’s legitimate hope for a brighter future. Maybe there was. Maybe there wasn’t. I wouldn’t know if I was dead.
Back then I’d look at the man in the mirror, bloated, hideous, covered with stitches and thought, though I knew the answer: who or what is that? I’d expected to lose half my tongue to cancer, but when I awoke from surgery, I discovered the whole thing gone, along with some important nerves in my neck. For more than a month, I wasn’t able to breathe comfortably. Mucus production dominated my life, apparently due in part to the loss of the cancerous nerves. The days I spent in the hospital after the surgery were among the darkest in my life, and all the darker because of a thought: What if it doesn’t get better than this? The question wasn’t rhetorical. I saw the answer whenever I looked into the void.
Though I knew the answer, I didn’t like it. Worse than what I saw in the mirror was what I felt: an inability to be comfortable, in any position, anywhere. Breathing hurt, and I felt like I was drowning all the time. It wasn’t possible to clear sufficient mucus from my airway or nasal passages to breathe. Waterboarding is a form of torture, and, while I hope never to experience it directly, the descriptions I’ve read of it resonate with what I felt after the surgery. I was dependent on machines to keep me relatively alive. One day I hope man and machine can merge in a beautiful symbiosis, but my partial merger with the machine world was not like that—yes, they kept me alive, but I was fighting them, and they were fighting me, rather than us working together towards some greater mechanical whole.
If anything kept me alive, it was Bess. Every moment hurt, but I saw how fiercely she clung to the idea that things might get better. She was so diligent about caring for my wounds, cleaning the surgical sites, and monitoring my progress; it had to be because she expected progress. She might’ve been subconsciously motivated because she’s a doctor and can’t ignore a medical task, or, alternately, she was deluded by love and false hope. But her own optimism helped me understand there was a chance things would get better, however much everything, moment by moment, hurt. Which was good, because things hurt. A lot. I breathed through a trache tube in my throat that was constantly clogging and suffocating me. Pushing bags of liquid food through my PEG tube using a pump was a relentless struggle. I barely had the energy to walk across the room. The level of absolute, continuous exhaustion is hard to convey to anyone who’s not been through something analgaous. With normal exhaustion, sleep is curative. I couldn’t even sleep well because I couldn’t breathe well.
The pain wasn’t solely physical; it was also the pain of trying to understand where I fit into the world and how to live; not just existentially but quite literally how to manage simple day-to-day tasks that were now impossible. When I got out of the hospital, I immediately faced a barrage of fucked-up bureaucracy: the hospital and medical suppliers kept calling me and wouldn’t talk to Bess without my verbal consent, which I couldn’t give, because I couldn’t speak. Insurance wanted to fight. We weren’t sent home with the right food pump. It took two weeks to get said pump. Most adults figure out how to exist in the sometimes-insufferably bureaucratic society we inhabit; I couldn’t do so, because I couldn’t speak, or think, or move. David Brooks just wrote an essay, “Death by a Thousand Papercuts,” that captures a little of what I felt:
[Administrators’] power is similar to what Annie Lowrey of The Atlantic has called the “time tax.” If you’ve ever fought a health care, corporate or university bureaucracy, you quickly realize you don’t have the time for it, so you give up. I don’t know about you, but my health insurer sometimes denies my family coverage for things that seem like obvious necessities, but I let it go unless it’s a major expense. I calculate that my time is more valuable.
My time wasn’t valuable[1] but I lacked the means to pay the time tax. I was already suffering so severely in the physical realm that I didn’t have the wherewithal to fight for the pump and the food and medications. Even now, I’m facing potential mystery bills generated by United Healthcare; the person at the Mayo Clinic who is supposed to interface with the specialty pharmacy says the specialty pharmacy won’t talk to her[2], and, while the specialty pharmacy hasn’t generated any bills directly to me yet, I sense that they’re coming. Maybe it sounds absurd to be talking of bureaucracy in an essay about suicide, but probably it makes sense to anyone whose entire life has ever been at the mercy of one[3]. Bureaucracy can be a form of exhaustion and misery. It eats at your resolve. It’s its own kind of slow death.
During the summer, I couldn’t see a way forward towards a better life, and I knew that if I couldn’t get to a better, more tolerable life, I wouldn’t want to live further. Bess worried horribly about me, though I did promise her that I wouldn’t leave without telling her first. She worked frantically to keep me here, and to make life as good as it could be, given the privations of the surgery and cancer. She did as well as anyone could. But the suffering persisted. I don’t know precisely where the line was between “tolerable” and “intolerable” except that I was on the wrong side immediately after the surgery. Probably each person has to decide for him or herself where the line is. I don’t generally favor suicide—I prefer hope to despair, life to death, success to failure—but I don’t consider it taboo or unthinkable, either. Life and human consciousness are in general good, and, as far as we can tell, rare in the universe. They should be fostered, though not at the expense of all other values and costs.
In the months after the surgery, I felt like I had no slack—no physical slack, no energetic slack, no intellectual slack. I hardly had the ability to do anything or to think anything. Commonplace tasks felt like climbing the Himalayas. And I was besieged by tasks: doctor appointments, wound care, antibiotics, food, managing the healthcare team and system. I didn’t have energy or attention for anything. Life’s pleasures, whether normal or small, weren’t available: sleep, rest, food, coffee, sex, showers. I was technically alive but felt like I shouldn’t be.
There’s a weird tendency for people to view others persisting despite suffering as if they’re watching the vapid inspiration videos infesting social media like so many varmints. They fantasize that suffering serves a purpose. It teaches us…something, beyond itself, I guess. Wisdom, or something. I think that’s true of some kinds of suffering, like completing a project at the limits of one’s abilities, or other activities that generate mental fortitude and knowledge. Other kinds of suffering, like medical suffering, seem more pointless. I’ve learned that medical suffering sucks, but I knew that going in. I don’t think I’m a better or wiser or more enriched person for having been through what I’ve been through; I’ve just been miserable. That kind of adversity isn’t worth the price of adversity.
I could construct a bogus story in which I’ve learned from the suffering of the last year, but I don’t think it’d be true. It’d just be a form of cope. Bess confirms that, for every person she sees who beatifically (and irrationally) convinces themselves that their suffering has a purpose, there are five more who are miserable and mean about the hand they’re dealt. She confirms I’m not miserable or mean,[4] but I am a realist. If I’ve learned anything, it’s what I already knew: technology is good; cancer is bad; using technology to defeat cancer and other forms of human immiseration is good. We should accelerate technological progress in the pursuit of improving human flourishing. In another world, a world with less FDA intransigence and blockage, I’d have gotten Transgene’s TG4050 cancer vaccine after my first surgery, and it would’ve prevented the recurrence that took my tongue. Fortunately, the FDA has been diligently protecting me from being harmed, and it has thus ensured that cancer will kill me. Thank you, FDA.
If suffering has done anything, it’s made me more willing to speak out for the importance of technological acceleration, and for the need to give people the option to take more risks and block fewer technologies. We can’t build AI to improve the human condition soon enough. Forty thousand people a year die in car crashes; if AI plus LIDAR leads to self-driving cars, great. MobileEye and Luminar are leaders in self-driving cars, but the other efforts to build out AI and, eventually, the machine god, shouldn’t be discounted.
I don’t know when I consciously realized that I might be doing well enough to ask myself more questions about how I might live as opposed to when I might choose to die—probably sometime in August or September. Improvements have been slow—so slow. I learned to swallow slurries again. For a long time, every swallow was a struggle. I choked so severely on water in late July or early August that I thought I might die. Bess witnessed it, and pounded on my back to attempt to help me, and said she found that episode terrifying, because the Heimlich maneuver isn’t efficacious against drowning.
As I became somewhat better able to breathe, and the number of medical appointments began to decline, I also planned for another set of privations in the form of chemotherapy. What happened on May 25 is called “salvage surgery.”[5] I guess the surgery salvaged my life, at the expense of my tongue, which had been replaced it with a flap of muscle from my thigh. But the flap felt like an inert, alien thing, that constantly alerted my brainstem to a foreign threat inside my own mouth. It was immobile and insensate and yet I felt it, constantly. Was I what had been salvaged? It sure didn’t feel like it.
Failure to eliminate head and neck cancer in the first go-round is extremely bad, though my surgeon, Dr. Hinni, got clean margins in May. The question became: should I do any chemotherapy in an attempt to eliminate any remaining cancer cells? No one gave us a clear answer, because one doesn’t exist: Bizarrely, no one had comprehensively studied the question. Almost all the oncologists Bess and I consulted with said they either didn’t know the answer, and most said that the choice was really 50/50. It seemed we had to “decide what we wanted,” which seemed like a great way to run a Montessori preschool, but a less great way to decide on life-altering cancer care. Oncologists are strangely loathe to provide real, data-driven recommendations. There’s a lot of misplaced hope and enthusiasm for debilitating therapies, while, at the same time, thinking outside the box seems to be viewed with unearned futility.
I looked at the odds of surviving a second recurrence—essentially zero—and decided to go for chemo. My first chemo infusion was scheduled for July 24, and on July 21 I got CT scans to see whether I could begin performing jaw exercises that might improve my mobility; those scans showed the recurrence and metastases. That horrible surgery had bought a mere two months. Chemo went from “maybe curative” to “palliative, and an attempt to buy time.” I was barely healed enough from surgery when the chemo began, and so the physical improvements were setback by chemo.
Yet even though the chemo was miserable, I’d gotten better enough to have pulled back from the brink. I was getting a little better at swallowing. I was able to breathe without constant, continual pain. The PEG tube that protruded from my stomach was a constant bother, but one that was manageable enough. Progress was just slow. Unbelievably slow. Every day, I pressed forward as best I could. I used the exercise bands. I walked a little farther. I tried to push in as much nutrition as possible. I adjusted medications to help me sleep. Most importantly, I spent time with Bess. The purpose of life is other people. For me, that’s presently instantiated by being with Bess, by being with friends and family, and by writing. The writing is an attempt to help others, especially the people who are facing their own cancers. Oncologists apparently aren’t, as a group, going to do enough to help people who need clinical trials, so I’m stepping into that gap.
There’s a common distinction between surviving and thriving. Many people who survive traumatic or horrifying events never thrive after. Esther Perel has spoken about the difference between Holocaust survivors who managed to thrive after, as her parents seemed to, versus those who didn’t, as two of my grandparents seemed not to.[6] I’ve been trying to thrive, as best as I can discern how, with the aid of Bess, and despite the challenges of the incurable disease that’s killing me, held at bay right now only by the clinical trial petosemtamab.
For now, not exiting was the right decision, thanks to the aid I received and am recreiving from many others around me. I’m trying to lead a generative, positive life with what time I have left, and writing is a key part of that effort. Few people understand how bad the FDA is, or the degree to which the FDA is retarding progress in oncology in particular, and consequently letting cancer patients die. Perhaps there are too few faces to associate with the statistics about cancer deaths, and so I’m attempting to associate a single person with the bureaucratic edifice that is the FDA, killing through its nominal mission to “protect.”
One day, maybe soon, may not, it will be time to enter the one-way portal. The preferred, antiseptic modern term is “death with dignity.” But the people around me and with me keep me alive, and show that we really do live for one another. The physical challenges are still great, but not as severe as they were last summer. I’m able to get up and engage in meaningful activity most days. I don’t want to be a burden—a burden on family, friends, or society, and by my own judgment I think myself not too great a burden for others. That line will likely be crossed in the next year, but it’s not been crossed yet. And the clinical trial I’m participating in—and the one after it, and, if that one is successful enough, the one after it—is generating the data necessary to make effective cancer drugs available to other people. My role is small—I’m not inventing the drug, I’m not manufacturing it, I’m not setting up the trials themselves—but it is a role, and it is one someone has to fulfill. Fulfilling it generates some meaning in my life, and meaning is an essential component of thriving. Maybe there will be other roles for me, before the end.
I’ll probably never be as effective as I was before the cancer, but I’ve been working, every day, at being more effective and less of a burden to the degree that I can achieve either. There’s plenty of physical pain in my life—as I write this, I have cuts on the pads of my fingers that won’t heal, I’m bleeding or barely not bleeding from my toenails, and my lower lip cycles between cracking and bleeding from those cracks. But the pain is bearable enough. I can breathe well enough. I’m able enough to write. So much has been taken, though enough remains for me to remain. I still believe what I wrote in “I know what happens to me after I die, but what about those left behind?”:
At some point, the suffering may be too much, and then I hope to exit by my own hand, gracefully, not having been wholly unmanned by disease. “Unmanned:” it’s an old-fashioned word, and one that appears in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, when it is time for Aragorn to department the world. His wife Arwen pleads with Aragorn “to stay yet for a while” because she “was not yet weary of her days.” Aragorn asks her if she would have him “wait until I wither and fall from my high seat unmanned and witless.” I didn’t imagine that I might face the same question so soon, and yet it’s here, before me, and I hope to depart before the pain robs me of my mind and leaves me witless and suffering. Aragorn says that “I speak no comfort to you, for there is no comfort for such pain within the circles of the world.” And that I fear is true of Bess, too, that there will be no true comfort for her pain. Her parents will help her, our friends will help her, she will not be alone—and yet the pain at the moment of my own departure will remain.
Aragorn and by extension Tolkien understood death with dignity. For a lot of the summer, I felt unmanned and witless. Now I’m sufficiently manned and witted to be writing this, to be cooking, and to consider a future I probably won’t get, but I might. I don’t want to be caught off guard by success, like a teen boy whose efforts to get laid work when he thought they never would. The incremental improvements have added up, and suicide is an all-or-nothing proposition. The decision not to die last summer was the right one. The show goes on. Life goes on. For now, I am a part of it.
[1] In the monetary sense: my marginal product of labor then was $0/hour. Bess wants me to point out that my time is inherently valuable to me as a human being.
[2] The specialty pharmacy also told her that they won’t talk to us. “They don’t speak directly to customers.” When the bill comes, I guess I’ll just send it back with an explanation that if they won’t interface with me, I won’t interface with them. Something tells me that will change their policy.
[4] Some of the nurses on the post-surgery recovery floor told Bess I was nice. I was trying to do unto others as I’d have them do unto me, and I hope I succeeded.
[5] The term for the surgery after the first surgery to remove head and neck cancer, and associated adjuvant treatment like radiation, fails
[6] They died before I was born, so I have no ability to judge for myself.
* “Status diffusion as a check on elite competition.” The title is about South Korea but the article’s most interesting material concerns how elites form and compete. It’s surprisingly congruent with the “Escalation Theory” article.
* All the Carcinogens We Cannot See (NY’er, $). By Siddhartha Mukherjee, impressive, and possibly germane to my own cancer situation, although in ways not obvious right now.
* “Book Stores Refuse To Host An Event For Rob K. Henderson’s Book.” If you’re wondering why a lot of bookstores now suck, read this article. Bess and I went to Changing Hands bookstore in Tempe, Arizona, maybe a year and a half or two years ago, and most of the books there were terrible: like the most inane woke syllabuses from the worst college classes had been turned into novels and nonfiction. If you are wondering why Substack often seems far more vital than books right now, this is a good choice, much like that one interview with Alex Perez.
The key word in the preceding sentence is “right now.” Good trends rarely last forever and the same is true of bad ones.
* “The Republican Party is Doomed?” The keys to the argument: “Increasing age and education polarization means that Republicans are rapidly losing the capacity to run public institutions at all levels other than electoral, and this trend cannot realistically reverse within a generation” and “even when Republicans win electoral power, they lack the human capital at all levels of governance to accomplish what they really want with it.” Not sure this is accurate—the Federalist Society has a lot of members—but it’s plausible.
If you find this piece worthwhile, consider the Go Fund Me that’s funding ongoing cancer care.
A story from Dan Luu, from back when he “TA’ed EE 202, a second year class on signals and systems at Purdue:”
When I suggested to the professor that he spend half an hour reviewing algebra for those students who never had the material covered cogently in high school, I was told in no uncertain terms that it would be a waste of time because some people just can’t hack it in engineering. I was told that I wouldn’t be so naive once the semester was done, because some people just can’t hack it in engineering.
This matches my experiences: when I was a first-year grad student in English,[1] my advisor was complaining about his students not knowing how to use commas, and I made a suggestion very similar to Luu’s: “Why not teach commas?” His reasoning was slightly different from “some people just can’t hack it in engineering,” in that he thought students should’ve learned comma usage in high school. I argued that, while he might be right in theory, if the students don’t know how to use commas, he ought to teach them how. He looked at me like I was a little dim and said “no.”
I thought and still think he’s wrong.
If a person doesn’t know fundamentals of a given field, and particularly if a larger group doesn’t, teach those fundamentals.[2] I’ve taught commas and semicolons to students almost every semester I’ve taught in college, and it’s neither time consuming nor hard. A lot of the students appreciate it and say no one has ever stopped to do so.
Usually I ask, when the first or second draft of their paper is due for peer editing, that students write down four major comma rules and a sample sentence showcasing each. I’m looking for something like: connecting two independent clauses (aka complete sentences) with a coordinating conjunction (like “and” or “or”), offsetting a dependent word, clause, or phase (“When John picked up the knife, …”), as a parenthetical (sometimes called “appositives” for reasons not obvious to me but probably having something to do with Latin), and lists. Students often know about lists (“John went to the store and bought mango, avocado, and shrimp”), but the other three elude them.
I don’t obsess with the way the rules are phrased and if the student has gotten the gist of the idea, that’s sufficient. They write for a few minutes, then I walk around and look at their answers and offer a bit of individual feedback. Ideally, I have some chocolate and give the winner or sometimes winners a treat. After, we go over the rules as a class. I repeat this three times, for each major paper. Students sometimes come up with funny example sentences. The goal is to rapidly learn and recall the material, then move on. There aren’t formal grades or punishments, but most students try in part because they know I’m coming around to read their answers.
We do semicolons, too—they’re used to conjoin related independent clauses without a coordinating conjunction, or to separate complex lists. I’ll use an example sentence of unrelated independent clauses like “I went to the grocery store; there is no god.”
I tell students that, once they know comma rules, they can break them, as I did in the previous paragraph. I don’t get into smaller, less important comma rules, which are covered by whatever book I assign students, like Write Right!.
Humanities classes almost never teach editing, either, which I find bizarre. I suspect that editing is to debugging as writing is to programming (or hardware design): essential. I usually teach editing at the sentence level, by collecting example sentences from student journals, then putting them on the board and asking students: “what would you do with this sentence, and why?” I walk around to read answers and offer brief feedback or tips. These are, to my mind, fundamental skills. Sentences I’ve used in the past include ones like this, regarding a chapter from Alain de Botton’s novel On Love: “Revealed in ‘Marxism,’ those who are satisfying a desire are not experiencing love rather they are using the concept to give themselves a purpose.” Or: “Contrast is something that most people find most intriguing.” These sentences are representative of the ones first- and second-year undergrads tend to produce at first.
I showed Bess an early version of this essay, and it turns out she had experiences similar to Luu’s, but at Arizona State University (ASU):
My O-chem professor was teaching us all something new, but he told me to quit when I didn’t just understand it immediately and was struggling. He had daily office hours, and I was determined to figure out the material, so I kept showing up. He wanted to appear helpful, but then acted resentful when I asked questions, “wasting his time” with topics from which he’d already moved on, and which I “should already understand”.
He suggested I drop the class, because “O-Chem is just too much for some people.” When I got the second-highest grade in the class two semesters in a row, he refused to write me a letter of recommendation because it had been so hard for me to initially grasp the material, despite the fact that I now thought fluently in it. My need for extra assistance to grasp the basics somehow overshadowed the fact that I became adept, and eventually offered tutoring for the course (where I hope I was kinder and more helpful to students than he was).
Regarding Bess’s organic chemistry story, I’m reminded of a section from David Epstein’s book Range: How Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World. In his chapter “Learning, Fast and Slow” Epstein writes that “for learning that is both durable (it sticks) and flexible (it can be applied broadly), fast and easy is precisely the problem” (85). Instead, it’s important to encounter “desirable difficulties,” or “obstacles that make learning more challenging, slower, and more frustrating in the short term, but better in the long term.” According to Epstein, students like Bess are often the ones who master the material and go on to be able to apply it. How many students has that professor foolishly discouraged? Has he ever read Range? Maybe he should.
Bess went on:
Dan’s story also reminds me of an attending doctor in my emergency medicine program; she judged residents on what they already knew and thought negatively of ones who, like me, asked a bunch of questions. But how else are you supposed to learn? This woman (I’m tempted to use a less-nice word) considered a good resident one who’d either already been taught the information during medical school, or, more likely, pretended to know it.
She saw the desire to learn and be taught—the point of a medical residency— as an inconvenience (hers) and a weakness (ours). Residency should be about gaining a firm foundation in an environment ostensibly about education, but turns out it’s really about cheap labor, posturing, and also some education where you can pick it up off the floor. When I see hospitals claiming that residency is about education, not work, I laugh. Everyone knows that argument is bullshit.
We can and should do a better job of teaching fundamentals, though I don’t see a lot of incentive to do so in formal settings. In most K – 12 public schools, after one to three years most teachers can’t effectively be fired, due to union rules, so the incentive to be good, let alone great, is weak. In universities, a lot of professors are, as I noted earlier, hired for research, not teaching. It’s possible that, as charter schools spread, we’ll see more experimentation and improvement at the ˚K –12 level. At the college and graduate school level, I’d love to see more efforts at instructional and institutional experimentation and diversity, but apart from the University of Austin, Minerva, the Thiel Fellowship, and a few other efforts, the teaching business is business-as-usual.
Moreover, there’s an important quirk of the college system: Congress and the Department of Education have outsourced the credentialing of colleges and universities to regional accreditation bodies. Harvard, for example, is accredited by “The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC).” But guess who makes up the regional accreditation bodies? Existing colleges and universities. How excited are existing colleges and universities to allow new competitors? Exactly. The term for this is “cartel.” This point is near top-of-mind because Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz emphasized it on their recent podcast regarding the crises of higher education. If you want a lot more, their podcast is good.
Unfortunately, my notions of what’s important in teaching don’t matter much any more because it’s unlikely I’ll ever teach again, given that I no longer have a tongue and am consequently difficult to understand. I really liked (and still like!) teaching, but doing it as an adjunct making $3 – $4k / class has been unwise for many years and is even more unwise given how short time is for me right now. Plus, the likelihood of me living out the year is not high.
In terms of trying to facilitate change and better practices, I also don’t know where, if at all, people teaching writing congregate online. Maybe they don’t congregate anywhere, so it’s hard to try and engage large numbers of instructors.
Tyler Cowen has a theory, expounded in various podcasts I’ve heard him on, that better teachers are really here to inspire students—which is true regarding both formal and informal education. Part of inspiration is, in my view, being able to rapidly traverse the knowledge space and figure out whatever the learner needs.
Until we perfect neural chips that can download the entirety of human knowledge to the fetal cortex while still in utero, no one springs from the womb knowing everything. In some areas you’ll always be a beginner. Competence, let alone mastery, starts with desire and basics.
[2] Schools like Purdue also overwhelmingly select faculty on the basis of research and grantsmanship, not teaching, so it’s possible that the instructors don’t care at all. Not every researcher is a Feynman, to put it lightly.
The Story's Story 