Talk:MD Anderson Cancer Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pictures[edit]

I will try and take some pictures next week. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 22:23, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Biased and opinionated text[edit]

Pulled the following from the article, as saying it is biased and opinionated is an understatement. Only with both sourcing — i.e. proving the statements true — and tweaking could the text go back into the article. jareha 21:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This growth has come with a cost. Internal strife, backstabbing and nepotism rain supreme at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson. The only thing bigger than most medical doctor's paychecks at the institution are their egos. This practice is 'tradition' and a definitive product of the ingrained corporate culture and its effects trickle down the management structure.
The quest for gain runs rampant inside the corporate culture and the institution is quickly becoming a force of greed in its own right. The hospital has recently engaged in a veiled shift from non-profit to more profit in the doctor's pockets by entering the practice of leasing buildings from 'for profit' ventures. Who are the partial stake holders of these buildings?
The hospital is also increasing the number of their trainees and postdoctoral fellows (e.g. interns) as these non-employees are a great source of cheap educated labor useful in defraying the cost of research and development.

The biased material will made more neutral and given a factual basis.[edit]

There is some bias but what is wrong with bias? Of equal bias is to use the center's own web page to promulgate what should be skeptically evaluated as polished "spin doctor" rhetoric.

To use the analogy of writing this article with the writing of a historical report: The reporting of history by a historian does not lie in just listing the facts but also in the factual interpretation and succinct use in depicting a representation of that moment in time (see historical analysis in historian).

Who better to report in this article than someone immersed in the corporate culture as this author is. Do you know that the cancer center forces something akin to "non-disclosure" agreement on its employees?

It is improbable that a scholarly correlation between two factors such as "ego and salary" can be established, but I CAN produce a reference to publicly available (individual and average) published salaries and then show known acknowledgements of ego.

Most of the facts can be established by independent reporting (say articles from the local paper), the freedom of information act [1] or even the annual reports by the center itself. [2][3] It is intersting to note that the annual report is the Conquest Magazine and the leaders really are savy enough to have choosen the title for its multiple meanings. Two of the cancer center's presidents have had very strong ties with George Bush and past, present and convicted Enron execs. (BTW, the Enron staff had those savy named "Death Star" energy price gouging stratigies, right?)

Good or bad, the cancer center's culture and growth strategy lie in the facts as well as in the interpretation of the facts. Let M. D. Anderson defend itself. After all the center has an entire department of Scientific Publications [4] to make sure the influential message makes it out in the acceptable "Anderson way"!

So in the end I know what I am trying to get across is accurate and true, albeit unpolished. So bear with me while I try to get across my informed and experienced opinion.

Finally in that vein: Is there a good template, say for MS Word, so I can create and review the formatting of the whole article at once? This way I do not have to review and recover what has been removed each time I try to improve the article.

MakingCancerProfitable 13:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With sourcing, criticism is allowed. And so long as you keep Wikipedia's no original research and neutrality policies in mind, I see no reason against critical facts being brought into this article. jareha 21:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With the impact of Wikipedia growing critical or controversial insertions will receive more than the usual scrutiny. This is an encyclopedia and we shall not be accepting slander, defamation, dirty laundry and what have you. On the whole, individuals expressing criticism (an angry website) but without a trend (e.g. numerous newspaper articles) is a poor reason for inserting criticism. JFW | T@lk 07:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Facility name[edit]

M.D. Anderson is an accredited degree granting institution, unlike what was in the article. They do graduate a small class of undergraduates every year. (about 100 currently) as well as a majority of post-grad and post-doc work. - cohesion★talk 09:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some of the departments should be listed. i tried to listi the skin group since im a patient but it got deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4ppeace (talk • contribs) 12:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The history section is entirely unsourced. This article therefore does not qualify for B-class status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

I reverted the addition of non-WP:RS blog sources being used as references for "controversy" regarding the status of the center. I'm not against the addition of notable controversy, just poorly sourced controversy. In addition, this may warrant the addition of a controversy section if there is more than one item, otherwise it's best as a single sentence with a WP:RS enclosed in <ref></ref> tags. My opinion. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salaries[edit]

I fail to see the relevance of the section discussing physician salaries, and the title lends itself to some type of political motivation. I removed both the section and the title unless the reasoning for its inclusion is explained. will381796 (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Annals of Internal Medicine - 20 October 2009 | Volume 151 Issue 8 and quote "As the systematic review by Terasawa and colleagues (1) shows nicely, few randomized studies have compared protons with the best of conventional radiation therapy. Why is this the case? First, constructing a new proton facility costs $100 million to 150 million. Technology companies do not usually have the resources to construct multiple facilities for testing purposes alone, because the potential financial rewards are much less than for oncology drugs. There is no patent protection on protons, only on specific techniques of generating those beams. If an institution invests more than $100 million to construct such a facility, can it afford a negative result from a randomized trial? In addition, many patients are hesitant to accept randomization when they perceive no increased risk, but do perceive potential benefit, from the use of protons. However, current knowledge about how radiation interacts with tumor and normal tissue is imperfect. Randomized trials are important to be sure that we have not overlooked important confounding factors and unintended consequences when implementing new radiation technologies." M.D. Anderson is contractually required to promote its proton center. Doctor referrals from the institution are made, to keep their salaries at this level. Reimbursement for proton therapy is higher than existing technologies. Mdphd2012 (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how that's relevant for the table, agree with will. - cohesion 15:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with cohesion & will. Tim Song (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The salary table and the section titled "Battle for the Rising Cost of Healthcare" are inappropriate for the article. Agree with will381796, Cohesion and Tim Song. Postoak (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Cohesion, Will, Tim, and Post.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section needs to be fleshed out better, but it should stay. It is Texas law for this information to be publicly accessible so that the hospital remains accountable to local and national government. Mdphd2012 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Texas law doesn't apply to a privately owned website. You have provided no reason for this information to stay. Wikipedia is not a guide to hospitals. This information was removed per policy, specifically, WP:NOT. Tell me, why should we violate policy for this information, on a website which is not bound by any Texas Law(as it is privately owned).— Dædαlus Contribs 02:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Daedalus. If TX law requires this information to be publicly accessible, the hospital should host it on its website. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Tim Song (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Texas law does not require that a tiny percentage of this hospital's faculty have their salaries posted on Wikipedia. - cohesion 03:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Texas law says you can do something does not mean wiki has to do it. Got that.
As I wrote, the section should be fleshed out some more and I could give it a try. I think the context will either meet the expectations of the editors or equally offend the editors. Is this a consensus designed to just suppress factual information? Right now two issues seem to be here: 1.) The section seems to be wp:SOAP. 2.) The table has no basis after the prose is removed. Mdphd2012 (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently consensus is against the addition of the material. As I said earlier, and as you apparently fail to read, Wikipedia is not a guide. Information like this is not allowed per our policy, not only that, but it adds nothing to the article. Also, the section is WP:SOAP. It doesn't seem to be, it is. It is someone's opinion and is not allowed per WP:OR.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content was up for well over 15 days and it appears that it was posted by another user. As per wiki policy the table was cited and factual. Therefore it is not wp:soap. Mdphd2012 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wp:NotYellow - Perhaps it would be best not to have any articles related to M.D. Anderson on Wikipedia. Mdphd2012 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. We have deleted 2-year-old hoaxes because, well, they are hoaxes. 15 days is nothing. The table is not WP:SOAP by itself, but totally irrelevant to the article.

This, however, is clearly WP:SOAP:

None of this is relevant to the subject anyway. WP:NOTYELLOW says that "Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic" - none of which is at issue here - but if you are so convinced that you are right and the article should be deleted, WP:AFD is that way. I strongly suspect, however, that it would be a WP:SNOW keep. Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

protected to prevent edit war on this subject[edit]

  • I've protected the page from editing for a few days, hopefully a clear consensus can be found here in that time and the edit warring will stop. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

This http://www.mdanderson.org/education-and-research/departments-programs-and-labs/departments-and-divisions/cardiology/sentrin/sentrin-2010-map-hotel-cpb.pdf has a map of the center - it could be helpful in citing locations in places. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTADIRECTORY.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, where is the CP info on the map?— Dædαlus Contribs 21:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This does seem something of a PR job for the institution. I've referenced a controversy concerning referrals to proton-therapy. I hope others willbe able to follow up. Any institution of this prominence has controversies -- that isn't a fact from which we should shy, although of course we have to stick to the principle of NPOV. --Christofurio (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat mentioned in the current status section. Seems weird to me to be in history, but just my opinion, I'm not editing this to avoid WP:COI. - cohesion 16:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

404 errors on reference links[edit]

Several of the links referenced by "additional locations" list return a 404 error because of age. How is the best way to update these with the current page addresses? D'Nezzy Smith (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links in the references[edit]

Hi there,

I notice some of the location reference links return a 404 error because they have not been updated with changes on the site. What is the best way to correct this? Can I just replace the links or do I need to save the old ones?

Thanks, D'Nezzy Smith (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some proposed changes[edit]

• Information to be removed: It is affiliated with Baylor College of Medicine. • Explanation of issue: Unlike The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, which MD Anderson Cancer Center partners in with its Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, MD Anderson is not affiliated with Baylor College of Medicine. I would propose removing the reference or providing a citation to support including the affiliation. • References supporting change: https://www.mdanderson.org/about-md-anderson/our-locations/md-anderson-cancer-network/network-members.html (linked page includes MD Anderson affiliates.)

• Information to be updated: The cancer center provided care for more than 146,000 patients in Fiscal Year 2018 and employs more than 20,000 people. • Explanation of issue: The updated information reflects the most current information. • References supporting change: https://www.mdanderson.org/about-md-anderson/facts-history/institutional-profile.html

• Information to be updated: In FY 2018, about 10,100 patients participated in therapeutic clinical research exploring novel treatments … • Explanation of issue: The updated information reflects the most current information. • References supporting change: https://www.mdanderson.org/about-md-anderson/facts-history/institutional-profile.html

• Information to be updated: invested more than $862.8 million in research in FY 2018 … • Explanation of issue: The updated information reflects the most current information. • References supporting change: https://www.mdanderson.org/about-md-anderson/facts-history/institutional-profile.html

thank you

Andrew MDACC (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 11-FEB-2019[edit]

  Edit request partially implemented  

  1. Green tickY The affiliation with Baylor was omitted.
  2. Red XN The figure on patients was not added, as this figure is not precise (in-patient vs out-patient, what "care" refers to in provided care.)
  3. Green tickY Investments in research were updated.
  4. Red XN Patient participation in "novel treatments" was not added, as this information does not clarify what is meant by novel or what these treatments entailed.[a]

plus Additional changes made:

Regards,  Spintendo  00:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ The use of the term novel also falls under MOS:RELTIME. As a drug used in humans would theoretically have been available to researchers for years and even decades in some instances going through all of the steps necessary for pre-use in patients, for whom is it novel to becomes the question. If the answer is "it's novel to the patient", this would make every drug a patient receives in a hospital for the first time "novel" to them whether it's a new drug or an older one. That problematic phrasing, versus "treatments previously unavailable to most patients through conventional means", which would remove the description of them as being "new" and thus prone to being outdated and/or imprecisely applied.

Reply 19-FEB-2019[edit]

@Spintendo: Thank you for your time and consideration regarding these proposed edits.

In section 2.2, can the reference to the The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center School of Health Professions be added back in after the reference to the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences? The School of Health Professions, which is separate from the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, offers bachelor's and graduate degrees in health sciences. Here's a link to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center School of Health Professions. A suggestion for wording: The MD Anderson Cancer Center School of Health Professions offers bachelor's degrees in 10 allied health fields, including clinical laboratory science; cytogenetic technology; cytotechnology; diagnostic imaging; diagnostic medical sonography; health care disparities, diversity and advocacy; histotechnology; medical dosimetry; molecular genetic technology; and radiation therapy. The school also offers master of science degrees in diagnostic genetics and radiologic sciences.

Regarding number 2 above: The figure on patients was not added, as this figure is not precise (in-patient vs out-patient, what "care" refers to in provided care.) ... Perhaps "patients served" would be a better way to phrase would be: "The cancer center served more than 146,000 patients in Fiscal Year 2018. This includes those who were diagnosed with and/or received care during FY18 for a malignant neoplasm or a malignancy-related condition, benign neoplasm, and/or a non-neoplastic condition. MD Anderson employs more than 20,000 people. Citation link

Regarding number 4 above: "Patient participation in "novel treatments" was not added, as this information does not clarify what is meant by novel or what these treatments entailed." ... Would this phrasing be acceptable? In FY 2018, more than 10,100 patients were enrolled in over 1,250 interventional clinical trials at MD Anderson.

Thank you for the consideration. Regards, Andrew MDACC (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling in the map[edit]

Greetings and felicitations. In the article's map. "Houston" is misspelled "Hjuston", and while I've created a login for OpenStreetMap, I still can't figure out how to fix this, including not being able to location the spelling there. Anyone? —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MD_Anderson_Cancer_Center&oldid=1208942882"