It was during the second year of DM , I was exposed to an interesting kind of academic activity in a conference -the medical debate. The issue in question was a thorny one – with conflicting data. The speakers were excellent and put forth brilliant points for and against the motion. As it so happened, they were both comparable not just in their credentials as doctors but also in their public speaking and debating skills.
As I attended more conferences, it soon became clear the debates were a fixture in many medical conferences and were eagerly awaited by the audience. The speakers in turn tried to do as much justice to the topic as possible. Unfortunately there were some problems
- Some speakers were better than others – and their point of view was more likely to resonate with the audience
- Even if the speakers were convinced of the other person’s argument to some extent, it soon became a contest in hyperbole
Most importantly it became a contest between individuals and not ideas. This is of course, entirely predictable to anyone who knows how the human mind works. We back people with ideas, not just ideas. Arjuna vs Karna, Tesla vs Edison, Steve Jobs vs Bill Gates – we revel in the great individual rivalries. You might scoff at this rather ridiculous over simplification. After all, the attendees of conferences are highly educated people, not given to emotional support of one speaker or the other.
Unfortunately, education doesn’t make us immune to biases and blind spots. The nature of the debate means that, the speakers have little incentive to expound on the gray areas and are forced to make emphatic statements in front of an audience baying for certainty. Medical science is rife with uncertainty and it is this uncertainty that make it interesting. To dissect the gray zone in which the debate occurs, the speakers and the audience need to know a lot of details. Some of these details like statistics are boring to the average listener ,but is at least available in public domain. Others are effectively hidden from the prying eyes of the public and are probably sleeping safe in the digital vaults of the companies that conduct the studies.
The need for certainty of the average audience member and the near universal reluctance to dig deeper into difficult topics makes it much harder to convey the nuances involved. At the end of the day, the audience are at risk of taking home the message they understand / like the best – setting the stage for eloquence based medicine. So I wondered, if the non-specialist audience could be influenced by the better speaker in the debate, would it make sense for the companies to ask for a particular speaker to speak for their product? Perhaps I’m being too cynical – I will leave it to your judgment. The moderator of the debate should be a person with impeccable credentials and should be able to rise above the need to simply give the audience some satisfying soundbites. Luckily in most debates this is the case – but not always.
More than posters, oral paper presentations and invited orations, debates spark enormous interest. With great popularity,comes great responsibility. Sometimes, I wonder if the moderator should make slide – instead of , or after the rebuttal. People remember what they see – so this should probably tilt the balance towards the truth (if one is known).
After every debate, I’m reminded of the final scene in the Kamal movie Nayagan, where the don’s grandson asks him a very simple question “Neenga nallavara,kettavara? (Are you a good man or bad man?)” – to which Kamal replies ‘I don’t now”. Some audience are like Kamal’s grandson – hoping for a simple answer to a very complex and nuanced question. I wish we had Kamals to tell them the truth.