^^quote by my youngest nephew, then four years old (he’s now ten, still knows everything, and wants to be a lawyer, FSM help us all).
I spent Friday in an all-day symposium at my institute, on the subject of tumour biomarkers and personalised medicine. It was a really interesting event – encompassing discussions of health economics and ethics as well as scientific presentations by physicians, pathologists, and omicists – and a very welcome change of pace after finally clearing all my deadlines. As usual the details are unbloggable…
…but luckily the ubiquitous feedback questionnaire provided some good fodder.
The tick-box options across the top of the form were as follows:
Not at all / Slightly / Moderately / Mostly / Completely
and the list of questions started innocuously enough, with a question about whether the symposium had been relevant to my professional interests.
Next question: “The symposium identified the gaps between biomarker need and discovery”.
Um… some of the presenters did cover the gaps issue very thoroughly, but I didn’t really feel like I could tick the “Completely” box. What if there are unknown unknowns?!
After a few more standard feedback form questions, there was another one that didn’t seem compatible with the “Completely” option:
“The symposium increased my knowledge”.
I did learn a lot from the symposium… but unlike my nephew, I don’t think that it increased my knowledge so comprehensively that I now know all the known knowns (and known unknowns) about every known thing.
Not even about biomarkers.
Right, I now have to attempt to find some incriminating photos of my nephew with which to blackmail him if he ever reads this post and decides to sue me…