The most interesting question I have ever been asked

[fw5tape6kq]

I heard someone ask a prospective IM resident the following question to assess their candidacy. It involves considering the following hypothetical scenario:

Imagine you have the ability to run any experiment of your choosing on any group of people you want, and can get the results of such a study within 24 hours. No resources are off limits, although the experiment you design must still be ethical in nature. What experiment(s) would you perform if your ultimate goal was to cure cancer, and why?

I thought this was a really interesting question, and I was somewhat dismayed to find that I could not generate a satisfactory answer to his gambit in the moment. Upon further reflection, I'm still not sure I have a good idea. I see cancer as such a heterogenous disease now that I don't even really consider the notion of a magic bullet "universal cure" as legitimate. What's more, I think I've always seen the our deficits in cancer treatment stemming from inadequate technologies, not lack of information. I.e., when genetic manipulation becomes more feasible, and we have the ability to literally correct DNA mutations, I think a definitive cancer cure will be more likely.

Nevertheless, I am really curious to see if anyone has ever thought about this question before and if they have answers of their own that they'd be willing to share.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Metaform]

The head attending of my hospital's Radiation Oncology department - who is a very well-respected physician double boarded in both Medical Onc and Rad Onc (back when that was still a thing) - apparently asks all prospective residents the same question during interview season. It involves considering the following hypothetical scenario:

Imagine you have the ability to run any experiment of your choosing on any group of people you want, and can get the results of such a study within 24 hours. No resources are off limits, although the experiment you design must still be ethical in nature. What experiment(s) would you perform if your ultimate goal was to cure cancer, and why?

I thought this was a really interesting question, and I was somewhat dismayed to find that I could not generate a satisfactory answer to his gambit in the moment. Upon further reflection, I'm still not sure I have a good idea. I see cancer as such a heterogenous disease now that I don't even really consider the notion of a magic bullet "universal cure" as legitimate. What's more, I think I've always seen the our deficits in cancer treatment stemming from inadequate technologies, not lack of information. I.e., when genetic manipulation becomes more feasible, and we have the ability to literally correct DNA mutations, I think a definitive cancer cure will be more likely.

Nevertheless, I am really curious to see if anyone has ever thought about this question before and if they have answers of their own that they'd be willing to share.

How does this help in determining if you have a quality resident sitting in front of you or a person who ponders about ridiculous hypothetical scenarios ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pathslides]

The head attending of my hospital's Radiation Oncology department - who is a very well-respected physician double boarded in both Medical Onc and Rad Onc (back when that was still a thing) - apparently asks all prospective residents the same question during interview season. It involves considering the following hypothetical scenario:

Imagine you have the ability to run any experiment of your choosing on any group of people you want, and can get the results of such a study within 24 hours. No resources are off limits, although the experiment you design must still be ethical in nature. What experiment(s) would you perform if your ultimate goal was to cure cancer, and why?

I thought this was a really interesting question, and I was somewhat dismayed to find that I could not generate a satisfactory answer to his gambit in the moment. Upon further reflection, I'm still not sure I have a good idea. I see cancer as such a heterogenous disease now that I don't even really consider the notion of a magic bullet "universal cure" as legitimate. What's more, I think I've always seen the our deficits in cancer treatment stemming from inadequate technologies, not lack of information. I.e., when genetic manipulation becomes more feasible, and we have the ability to literally correct DNA mutations, I think a definitive cancer cure will be more likely.

Nevertheless, I am really curious to see if anyone has ever thought about this question before and if they have answers of their own that they'd be willing to share.

That attending sounds like a tool. How does that question determine a good resident?

 

[fw5tape6kq]

That attending sounds like a tool. How does that question determine a good resident?

Assessing creativity, vision, overall knowledge of cancer, and familiarity with research? I agree with you, it's not the easiest question in the world to answer, and I would like to think that its certainly not her only criteria in assessing a prospective resident, but I though it was an intriguing gambit at the least. Kind of like the way Bill Gates supposedly asked all of the people he hired for Microsoft why potholes covers were round.

 

[CatFactorial]

Defeat tachyphylaxis! CONQUER EVOLUTION.