Said it before and I’ll say it again, Take. A. Breath.
Consider the headline from STAT, “FDA purges material on clinical trial diversity from its site, showing stakes of Trump DEI ban .” True.
Now the subhead, “The scrubbing could affect the ways researchers and companies test drugs and medical devices.” Key word, “could.” The great journalistic wiggle word.
Alas, science is about using clear language. Conditional phraseology isn’t always helpful. Aliens could land their flying saucers atop FDA headquarters tomorrow -- but what’s the likelihood? It’s not War of the Worlds but War of the Words.
And words matter. Let’s put the President’s DEI executive order in context. Here’s the actual reality: It is VERY important to understand that, website “scrubbing” notwithstanding, clinical trial diversity guidance development and related FDA initiatives relative to more representative patient participation are unchanged and on-track. Full stop. No conditional wording required.
While it is the media’s job to generate important debate, high velocity “what ifs” show (with respect to Matt Herper and Lizzy Lawrence – two of the best reporters in this space) a lack of finesse. There isn’t anything factually wrong with their reporting, but the article implies a lot that is neither helpful nor likely. Does the executive order presage other possibilities? It could, but is that helpful, prescient reporting – or click bait? Correlation is not causation.
Whether you're a DEI diehard or otherwise, don't let your positions on that ideology or phraseology take your eyes off the prize - clinical trials that are more representative of the population (more than half of whom are women) and of any given medical technology’s specific disease focus.
Political rhetoric (regardless of where you are on the linguistic pronoun spectrum) should play zero role is advancing 21st century regulatory science.
As Rudyard Kipling wrote, “Words are the most powerful drug used by mankind.”
Onward!
Consider the headline from STAT, “FDA purges material on clinical trial diversity from its site, showing stakes of Trump DEI ban .” True.
Now the subhead, “The scrubbing could affect the ways researchers and companies test drugs and medical devices.” Key word, “could.” The great journalistic wiggle word.
Alas, science is about using clear language. Conditional phraseology isn’t always helpful. Aliens could land their flying saucers atop FDA headquarters tomorrow -- but what’s the likelihood? It’s not War of the Worlds but War of the Words.
And words matter. Let’s put the President’s DEI executive order in context. Here’s the actual reality: It is VERY important to understand that, website “scrubbing” notwithstanding, clinical trial diversity guidance development and related FDA initiatives relative to more representative patient participation are unchanged and on-track. Full stop. No conditional wording required.
While it is the media’s job to generate important debate, high velocity “what ifs” show (with respect to Matt Herper and Lizzy Lawrence – two of the best reporters in this space) a lack of finesse. There isn’t anything factually wrong with their reporting, but the article implies a lot that is neither helpful nor likely. Does the executive order presage other possibilities? It could, but is that helpful, prescient reporting – or click bait? Correlation is not causation.
Whether you're a DEI diehard or otherwise, don't let your positions on that ideology or phraseology take your eyes off the prize - clinical trials that are more representative of the population (more than half of whom are women) and of any given medical technology’s specific disease focus.
Political rhetoric (regardless of where you are on the linguistic pronoun spectrum) should play zero role is advancing 21st century regulatory science.
As Rudyard Kipling wrote, “Words are the most powerful drug used by mankind.”
Onward!
