Identifying Bias: It’s Not Just Bribes That Motivate

I was reading the comments on this CNN article, titled “Experts Caution Against Stem Cell Treatments Abroad.” They’re pretty typical of CNN comments:

CorrDNEqCaus
All I’m reading here is, “Don’t trust these treatments until we’re able to provide them and charge you more for it.”

unowhoitsme
It’s about medical power and control for more $$$$$$.

There’s a whole slew of people essentially saying that these “experts” are on the take.

Why is this the first bias people look to? Is that the most logical answer? Nope. It never is. It’s a possible answer, but it’s not where you should look first. In fact, it’s pretty far down the list. What bias should you look to first?

Pretend you’re a doctor.

Someone asks you about flying to Europe to get some of your cells injected into your neck. What do you say?

Well, what’s you’re upside?

You say “Ya, that sounds fine. Europe has some good medicine going on.” What is your possible benefit in saying this? Maybe someone who’s hurting might broaden their horizons and look for some help where they wouldn’t have looked before? Maybe? Unlikely, but maybe.

What’s your downside? Somebody goes to Europe, a continent that both Moldova (GDP $1516) and Germany (GDP $40,670) call home, picks the wrong clinic, gets some poor medical treatment and dies. You’ve helped spread the word about something that’s now harmed someone. That possibility doesn’t feel good…

So, even though you have no financial stake, you’re not getting paid by big Pharma and you’re not going to get sued for malpractice by saying “Go to Europe!”, your downside still wildly outweighs your upside.

Your comments are tailored for the general public. (“Hey, Moldova’s in Europe! You said Europe was ok!!”) You feel responsible to put out solid information that’s not going to harm people.

So you say, “Hey, I wouldn’t recommend going to Europe for stem cell treatment.” You’re not a crook, or a liar, or on the take. You’re rational.

So, before you dismiss a doctor, or a scientist, or a politician, or whoever, consider the upside and downside of their possible options.