Laura Scherer

@ldscherer.bsky.social

Associate prof in Colorado. Research spans shared decision making, risk communication, health misinformation and science skepticism. Open science advocate

I have written many healthcare stories, but never before have I written about my own health. I decided to do so after learning one of my drugs costs nearly $1,000 a pill and just 25 cents to make. What I found was an incredible story of discovery and exploitation. www.propublica.org/article/revl...

The Price of Remission

When I was diagnosed with cancer, I set out to understand why a single pill of Revlimid cost the same as a new iPhone. I’ve covered high drug prices as a reporter for years. What I discovered shocked ...

propublica.org

Can confirm that my NSF grant "How False Beliefs Form & How to Correct Them" was cancelled today because it is "not in alignment with current NSF priorities" Shocking that understanding how people are misled by false information is now a forbidden topic. Our work will continue but at a smaller scale

Rebekah Tromble@rebekahtromble.bsky.social · last yr.

NSF has posted an “update on priorities.” They’re canceling all “DEI and misinformation/disinformation” grants. And the guidance on how to fulfill the longstanding, legally mandated Broadening Participation requirement is utterly incoherent. www.nsf.gov/updates-on-p...

Economists are baffled as to why the US is gutting its unmatched scientific enterprise: “This is really killing the goose that lays the golden egg.” “It’s (science) like a machine, you put a dollar in and you get $5 back.” www.nytimes.com/2025/03/31/b...

Trump Science Funding Cuts May Hurt Economy, Experts Say

Since World War II, U.S. research funding has led to discoveries that fueled economic gains. Now cutbacks are seen as putting that legacy in jeopardy.

nytimes.com

Earlier this week, The Regime suddenly axed grants related to LongCOVID. Massive backlash from advocates ensued. And today, the NIH reversed course and reinstated at least some of this grant funding. Keep making noise. Keep taking up space. Keep shouting the truth. thesicktimes.org/2025/03/28/u...

UPDATE: RECOVER Long COVID pathobiology grants restored - The Sick Times

Long COVID research grants from the National Institutes of Health’s RECOVER program will be restored following news stories about their abrupt cancellations and advocacy to restore the funding, accord...

thesicktimes.org

New paper Evaluation of how US women react to a decision aid informing them of the harms and benefits of mammography: a qualitative study by Brad Morse, @ldscherer.bsky.social, @kirstenmccaffery.bsky.social, me and an illustrious co-author team! Just out in BMJ Open bmjopen.bmj.com/content/15/3...

Evaluation of how US women react to a decision aid informing them of the harms and benefits of mammography: a qualitative study

Objectives To evaluate how women react to a decision aid (DA) informing them of the harms and benefits of mammography, including overdiagnosis. Background Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women. In efforts to reduce mortality, mammography has been widely accepted as an effective method of early detection. However, there is a balance between the known harms and benefits of breast cancer screening. Overdiagnosis is the detection of a cancer that would never cause harm over the lifetime. Comprehension and acceptance of overdiagnosis can be difficult for some people. Design Qualitative study using a semistructured interview protocol. Data were analysed in Atlas.Ti and the framework method was used to identify themes. Setting Telephone interviews with participants living in the USA. Participants 30 female individuals aged 39–49, selected from a nationally representative US sample of individuals who had completed a survey <2 weeks prior, during which they viewed a DA describing the main harms and benefits of breast cancer screening. Results Six major themes were identified: (1) overdiagnosis and false positives were often conflated, (2) previous experience and the influence of doctors and family supersedes new information, (3) beliefs about cancer dominate acceptance and comprehension of overdiagnosis, (4) emotional reactions to the novelty of overdiagnosis, (5) reactions to screening benefits—“I’ll be the one”, and (6) people reported the DA is credible, but they remained sceptical and performed their own research. Conclusion This study provides insights into the challenges of communicating about the harms of breast cancer screening, particularly overdiagnosis. While it is critical to honestly communicate with patients about the harms of breast cancer screening, it is also important to consider the emotional impact of conveying such information. Data are available in a public, open access repository. Data are available on the Open Science Framework, [dataset] Scherer L, Suresh K, Mosley B, Frempong J. Data from: R37 Ipsos breast cancer screening survey and qualitative interviews. Open Science Framework, March 4, 2022. <https://osf.io/y8stc/>

bmjopen.bmj.com

This is an important article. Far more money and resources goes to specialists than primary care. But when you think about your doctor, the medical expert you trust and see the most, they’re probably a primary care doc.

Annals of Family Medicine@annfammed.bsky.social · last yr.

🔗 - www.annfammed.org/content/earl... This early access article showcases the results of a United States public opinion survey revealing a tremendous disparity between current levels of #PrimaryCare spending & public perceptions of primary care expenditure and value. #FMsky #Medsky

Here we go! 3rd installment of the misinformation and belief science preconference at #SPSP2025. First up is Jeff Hancock talking about the truth-default theory of deception detection. We are all truth-biased, expect ppl to be honest and most are but we can shift out of that mindset when cued. 1/

Misinformation circa 2025

Jeff Hancock & Ryan Moore

Trust in science, and the status of science as a public good, has relied on public institutions as a foundation for providing resources and infrastructure and for adopting policies that promote research integrity. The last few weeks suggest that we could lose some of that foundation in the US. 1/