Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Public Utility, You Say? | Main | Cuprate Voodoo »

May 13, 2005

ASCO Fever

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Well, today is the start of the ASCO meeting, which as I've mentioned is an interesting, important blizzard of hype and spin. A number of companies (Imclone, Merck KGaA, Bayer, Genentech, Pfizer and others) have presentations that will be watched closely. Some of these will take place over the weekend, which will at least keep a few stocks from having to halt trading (unless there are some big order imbalances come Monday morning, that is. . .)

It's hard to keep a proper perspective on this sort of presentation. One thing to remember is that everyone involved realizes the spotlight that they're under, and has planned accordingly. I've long thought that scientific meetings, as they've come to be run, are one of the worst places to discuss scientific results. I'm sure that many of the interesting and important conclusions are things that would only become clear after sitting down with the complete data sets for a few days (or weeks). Distilling all of it down to a meeting talk, even assuming (charitably) that you're not trying to sell something or divert attention, is going to degrade the information.

So, enjoy the news bulletins, and good luck with the stocks prices. But don't take ASCO more seriously than it deserves.

(By the way, another preview of the conference can be found here. Can anyone tell me what the author means in her last sentence, "The financial component is one area that is sorely lacking in research"? Here I thought that we were getting beaten up on for making the "financial component" too darn important. . .)

Comments (2) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Cancer


COMMENTS

1. qetzal on May 13, 2005 9:27 AM writes...

"I've long thought that scientific meetings, as they've come to be run, are one of the worst places to discuss scientific results."



I definitely agree with that. These days, even the "scientific" conferences all seem to be mainly about posturing and PR. Sort of like leks for scientists. ;-)



I can dimly remember, back in grad school, going to meetings where real science was presented. Talks lasted 45 or 50 minutes, not 15 or 20, so you couldn't just skim over the data - you had to go through the details. Of course, that made it much harder to get away with weak or unwarranted conclusions.



I haven't been to a meeting like that since my degree. Maybe it's just because I've been in biotech ever since, where the conference speakers are always playing to a financial audience (even if that's not who's actually in the room).



Are there any "real" scientific meetings any more? Or am I just slipping into geezer-hood, mis-remembering how much better things were "when I was a grad student."

Permalink to Comment

2. DV Henkel-Wallace on May 14, 2005 1:05 PM writes...

You mean there are _talks_ at conferences? I didn't realise! I have always gone to meet others and talk to people I know.

Being gregarious takes practice, but is really worth it. Talking to people is the real value of the conference. And when you are starting out you don't know anyone yet, so you have to learn how to meet others. They never seem to teach this in school.


(actually, qetzal, I also remember a few good presentations, but most aren't worth it. Even when the science is good, the presenter usually just reads the slides, which means not only is the presentation boring, but is actually worse than just reading the paper in the comfort of your own bed. Refereeing needs to evolve so that the refs can verify that the presenter 1> knows how to give a good presentation and 2> knows how to give a _useful_ one.


(There are only two useful topics someone can give: A> this is stuff in our paper that's not obvious/hard to understand without more depth and B> This is stuff we've been working on / new results we have since the paper was submitted.)

I don't go to many myself.

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
What If?
Novartis Impresses Where Others Have Failed
Exelixis Against the Wall
A Last Summer Day Off
The Early FDA
Drug Repurposing
The Smallest Drugs
Life Is Too Short For Some Journal Feeds