| | Jonah Lehrer (in the article) said:
Furthermore, torcetrapib had already undergone a small clinical trial, which showed that the drug could increase HDL and decrease LDL. Kindler told his investors that, by the second half of 2007, Pfizer would begin applying for approval from the FDA. The success of the drug seemed like a sure thing.
And then, just two days later, on December 2, 2006, Pfizer issued a stunning announcement: The torcetrapib Phase III clinical trial was being terminated. Although the compound was supposed to prevent heart disease, it was actually triggering higher rates of chest pain and heart failure and a 60 percent increase in overall mortality. The drug appeared to be killing people.
That week, Pfizer’s value plummeted by $21 billion.
The story of torcetrapib is a tale of mistaken causation. Pfizer was operating on the assumption that raising levels of HDL cholesterol and lowering LDL would lead to a predictable outcome: Improved cardiovascular health. Less arterial plaque. Cleaner pipes. But that didn’t happen.
Such failures occur all the time in the drug industry.
But what he is guilty of is of a type of 'shoot-the-messenger' fallacy. In scientific parlance, an independent variable is something you deliberately change (it is a "cause"), and a dependent variable is something you hope to change (it is an "effect"). You try to change the dependent variable by changing the independent variable. In the experiment mentioned, researchers tried to change HDL levels by administering the drug, torcetrapib. But Lehrer 'shoots-the-independent-variable' here. He assumes that the looked-for effect (the raised HDL levels) of administration of the causal substance is precisely what it is that created the unintended consequence of increased overall mortality.
In other words, he is guilty of the very charges that he lays out against the researchers (or, against science, in general)!
After looking into the matter a little bit, I discovered that the drug, torcetrapib doesn't just do one thing in your body, such as raise your HDL levels, but instead it has side-effects (which is actually a very common thing, if not a ubiquitous thing). One of the side-effects of this drug, increasing your blood pressure, happens to be a great candidate for explanation of the negative results of the very torcetrapib study that Lehrer mentions. So, do you know what it would have taken to have made Lehrer happy in this regard -- to allow him to retain a conviction that science is progressing (rather than crumbling backward to the Stone Age)? I do, it would have taken a drug without side-effects. If a drug without side-effects were discovered and used, then Lehrer might be okay with continuing to believe in the progress of science.
In other words, he doesn't like to live in reality, where there are troublesome limitations -- such as pharmaceutical compounds that don't just do what they are supposed to, but also have side effects. In his intellectual laziness, he wants what the mystic wants: effortless certainty. What does he do when he doesn't get it? He lashes out at reality. If he finds himself in conflict with reality, then he claims that it is reality that is in the wrong. It is certainly not his fault. It is not due to his intellectual laziness. It is something that is wrong with reality (e.g., "It's mystery all the way down").
Ed
Reference: The end of the road for CETP inhibitors after torcetrapib?
|
|