On Monday, I joined a few others at a Table Talk to learn about developments in immunotherapy research and the basic mechanisms of how it works. In essence, there are new treatments that may be more effective and less damaging than the current chemotherapy and radiation treatments. In the most basic explanation, the most notable mechanisms include the following: increasing flagging of cancer cells for immune cells to attack, training our immune cells to better recognize cancerous cells, and using viruses to attack these cells. It was fascinating to learn about immunotherapy, and brings both hope and a sense of reality to the field of cancer research today. While these treatments can be very promising, much more research must be conducted because specific drugs must be developed for different types of cancer. However, this can take years in order for drugs to be approved.

Additionally, as we were discussing the results of a particular study, I thought of the ethical implications that researchers face in conducting these. While not specific to cancer treatment in general, there must always be a very difficult balance between obtaining enough information for analysis and withholding treatment for a group of people in the study. From what I understand,  medical studies often split participants into randomized groups. One patient may receive one drug, and the other may receive the standard treatment in order to compare effectiveness. However, if the new drug appears to be more effective over a period of time, when is the ethical time to switch over these participants? Repeats of experiments are often done in order to confirm results before a drug is approved. But what would make it ethical to subject some people to what appears to be a less effective treatment?

With this in mind, it is a reminder that research can never be perfect, and that science, for all its glory as being rational and concrete, there are a multitude of factors that influence our understandings that come from it.