I am a great fan of technology, but an even greater fan of things that work.  A recent article in Forbes tells how an inexpensive “vinegar test” for cervical cancer is saving lives in India, in places where the western standard pap smear is too expensive to use.  “This is a striking example of how a low-tech, low-cost intervention can sometimes take the place of a more high-tech innovation.”

Simpler technology did not mean a simpler project.  Strong analytical and organizing skills were needed.  “They made innovative use of new technology – using digital cameras to record exams… and geomapping of the slums of Mumbai so women could be found – and of super-organized records… [W]orkers did a great job of making sure women who were screened as potentially having cancer did get to Tata Memorial for their exams.”

Simpler technology did not mean science was abandoned.  On the contrary, data were collected so the project could be evaluated.  “The vinegar test reduced the rate of cervical cancer death from 16.2 women per 100,000 to 11.1 women per 100,000, a 31% reduction.”

This success in India made me think about social programs here in wealthy, high-tech America.  Too often programs seem to continue, not because they achieve their original goals, but because, after a great battle to enact them, their champions are blind to measuring the outcome or to accepting failure.  (Or, whoever is making money off the program doesn’t seem to care if it works or not.)  DARE, the program to keep kids off drugs, comes to mind.

Suppose every social program had an explicit goal and a stated manner to measure progress.  Suppose the proponents were willing to say, “Well, darn – that didn’t work, let’s stop doing it and try something else”.  Suppose opponents refrained from gloating.  Suppose we were impressed, not by whatever is the latest whiz-bang technology or whatever we worked so hard on, but by what achieved the goals.

Note: Time seems to have taken down their original article. Internet links can be ephemeral indeed.  Ponderer