« Davos Conversations on the Future of Media | Main | Joining the Me2Revolution »
February 10, 2006
The Fight Against Cancer--Finally Some Good News
I hosted a dinner last night at my home for Dr. Lee Hartwell, president and director of the Seattle-based Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research (http://www.fhcrc.org/) Center (disclosure: an Edelman client). Dr. Hartwell is a Nobel prize winning scientist who has run the Center for the past decade. The dinner coincided with this week's announcement that the rate of mortality in the US for cancer dropped in 2005 for the first time in 50 years. In fact, if age-adjusted for an aging population (yes, that is you Baby Boomers), the rate of cancer death has been dropping for the past eight years.
Why the decrease in mortality? There are four key factors. First is cancer prevention by behavior change. Specifically, the #1 killer, lung cancer, is down substantially because of a drop in smoking. Nevertheless, while the long-term smoking trend is down smoking continues to be an enormous public health issue. The number of smokers is cut in half since 1950. Dr. Hartwell still believes there is a link between obesity and breast cancer, despite the US Government report that a low-fat diet did not lead to significant change in cancer rates among women (he feels the women did not get their fat as percentage of total intake down sufficiently--only went from 29% to 24% of total calories). In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, two thirds of cancers are preventable.
The second important factor is early detection. Dr. Hartwell said that 60% of cancer patients now survive, mostly those who find the cancer early on. He said that his Center is working hard on changing the economics of detection. Specifically, the researchers are trying to find specific proteins in the blood that would indicate high cancer risk. Those at risk then would go on to utilize the mammography or colonoscopy tests that are too costly to administer to the entire population as first line detection.
The third factor was improvement on the therapeutic side. Most patients still are treated with surgery and or radiation. But his Center is optimistic about the potential for harnessing the power of the body's immune system. He noted an experiment for transplanting bone marrow in leukemia patients--in fact, the donor cells eliminated the cancer. They are now also harvesting immune cells, growing them up, pairing them with toxins and reinserting them in the body for antibody therapy. Indeed, the therapeutic treatments are so effective in many instances they have turned many types of cancer into chronic conditions.
The fourth factor is work in basic science. The Center has found that a small percentage of cancer cells are the regenerating ones. The Center believes that it has less chance of altering the risk from the inherited gene pool (risk from birth) but a higher likelihood of affecting risk from lifestyle or environment. For example, the Center has found that 25% of cancers are caused by a virus (cervical cancer from human papilloma virus as instance) which can be detected and even prevented through vaccine. Researchers now believe that up to half of the time, changes in genes are reversible.
What is the role in this fight for public relations? Dr. Hartwell was adamant about the role of the media in educating the populace on lifestyle choices and the link to cancer risk. Ron Winslow, health editor of the Wall Street Journal, added an interesting view. "There is a teaching moment when writing about science. Those of us in the news business recognize that once we have written a story, we will not be coming back to the same subject for a while. So we are only part of the solution."
I would also add that there should be a corporate business focus on cancer prevention by corporations who can use their position to advocate healthier lifestyles. This is purpose of CEO Roundtable on Cancer, a newly formed group (http://www.ceoroundtableoncancer.org/) (Disclosure: A client).
Eventually, our conversation came around to the need for advocacy through enthusiasts, which is shorthand for participation in blogging and on message boards. We must have as the goal a science-literate population, involved in their own health and able to comprehend and get on the latest data. Our job in PR then must be to persuade clients to participate in new media options despite perceived risk of regulatory constraint while simultaneously participating in campaigns that promote general health literacy.
We have also to avoid any politicizing of data or muzzling of scientific experts, as alleged in this week's controversy involving a public affairs officer at NASA who "tried to prevent senior career scientists from speaking and writing freely when their views on the realities of climate change differed from those of the White House. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902116.html). Science is a process of continuous discovery and occasionally baffling outcomes--we must allow a full exchange of information and the subsequent debate, as credibility only comes with giving up control.
Posted by Edelman at February 10, 2006 12:24 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.edelman.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/82
Comments
Thanks for the info. My family has a significant cancer history, particularly my mom and grandmother, both breat cancer survivors.
PR, and in this case, maybe more of a social marketing approach, is indeed the key to health among individuals.
Pharma companies, particulalry now, with pending Merck lawsuits, have always been self-appointed gatekeepers. They have the drugs, the treatments we need. When they don't work or have cause harm, we get angry. And then they are the ones who grant access to cures and treatments for the harm done by their original product. Merck is in hot water right now. Low public trust, a HR implosion, and potential financial damages as results of the lawsuit. Merck needs some good pr, some caus related marketing. And they needed it yesterday.
Perhaps the model for healthcare PR is Johnson & Johnson? Long thought to be morally strong and enveloped in family values, J&J has a pr machine running around the clock. SO when Tylenol is contaminated, they an react. Recently they won an award for their Discover Nursing campaign. They seem to promote the free flow of ideas which Richard rightfully advocates as the only means to trust and ultimately medical advancement.
Posted by: Mike Sacks at February 15, 2006 11:26 AM
I have to agree with Mike Sachs that while PR approaches are important, it's also necessary to consider them within a social context where attention is especially focused on behaviors and not just knowledge transmission and building awareness of healthy or risky behaviors. On that note I have to repsectfully disagree with Dr. Hartwell's contention that further decreasing fat intake might reduce cancers. Even if that were true (and a few small studies suggest 'possibly'), initiating a population-wide effort to drive down total fat intake to the 20% range is asking for too much from all but the truly commited. Programs like 5 A Day derive their value from the focus on making healthier behaviors relevant to people's daily lives and achievable. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the NIH meetings on implications of the Women's HEalth Study (the fount of this latest finding) next week.
The idea of tapping into the blogs and other new communication technologies is important. But I see a problem with getting the most credible sources of health information (ie, government health agencies like the NIH and CDC and major nonprofits - ACS and AHA for example) actively involved in this because of inherent structural and public accountability concerns that need to be addressed and resolved. Why not get in front of this trend with the DC office hosting some of your Me2 players, senior communications executives from these and other agencies and a few 'proof of concept' practitioners to talk about these ideas and how they can be applied in the public and nonprofit sectors and what barriers exist - or are imagined - to more fully engaging various consumers segments in their health promotion and protection?
Posted by: craig lefebvre at February 23, 2006 1:03 PM
I like the idea/project of engaging CEOs into the fight against cancer but I am really disappointed by their site: only a few big names, no detailed list of the companies involved, no detailed news. Typically an old/pre-blog site :(
On trying to help NGOs to use blogs my own experience has proved rather disappointing (until now. The tobacco control movement seems quite reluctant to blog and I have found the same at the Sierra Club (where only Carl Pope seems allowed to blog) and other environmental organizations. This is to the point where I am thinking about writing a piece about the obstacles to blogging. I was sort of relieved to read the same types of comments concerning those obstacles: will to control ther information, institutional rigidity, fear of consequences.
I also wonder about the simple (and frequent?) lack of writing skills. Not everybody is a born blogger, many are highly reluctant.
As for professional journalists it is interesting to see how some dive into the trend while others don't get it. The Bremerton Sun (Scripps) is trying to incite a few of its writers to blog: it is sad to see how some don't understand at all the new media and do nothing with it. Nothing that some blog-coaching could not cure but they also seem unwilling to learn from other, more experienced bloggers. I am amazed that a group like Scripps seems so clueless and does not try to maximize this opportunity.
Back to the CEOs and cancer: I think it would be a great idea at the European level, one to develop with David Khayat the President of the New French National Cancer Institute. There are also talks to launch a new Europe Against Cancer program, involving European CEOs from the start would be useful. I would love to work on that :)
Posted by: philippe boucher at March 2, 2006 11:48 AM