All disease? I hope they mean specifically pathogens, because there are plenty of diseases that are caused by other things or have unknown causes, and you can throw ten times the net worth of Facebook at them and they probably wouldn't be cured noticeably sooner. If it's just pathogens, I could believe that if we programmed nanoprobes that could target them, making antibiotics/antivirals permanently obsolete.
Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100
191–200 of 344 posts
Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguable. We can only compare difficulty after the fact, if Einstein hadn't rolled along with relativity and 3 decade gap for research, the atomic bomb wouldn't have been possible. There may be a 'relativity' level discovery in biology/aging/cancer that will change the historic perspective. We can't know until after the fact.
I strongly disagree that you can only compare difficulty after the fact. The full class of cancers is an object of lots higher complexity than quantum mechanics. For one, you need a theory of quantum mechanics to fully predict from the details of a cell (this is not the same thing as saying cells leverage entanglement and maintain superpositions). A population of cells is more complex than an atom as it requires more…
> The full class of cancers is an object of lots higher complexity than quantum mechanics.
Could you elaborate as to why you believe that?
Having worked on both biological and physical simulations the limits from a ground-up perspective are quite similar. While there are no well-understood analytic forms to describe biological systems, unlike in quantum systems, the fundamentals of the problem are the same: we can't predict things because there are too many interactions to easily model.
There is a whole world of non-traditional techniques opening up with increases in computational capacity.
Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
What approaches do you mean? In which ways do you think it's broken?
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-ou... He quotes Eliezer Yudkowsky: Parapsychologists are constantly protesting that they are playing by all the standard scientific rules, and yet their results are being ignored – that they are unfairly being held to higher standards than everyone else. I’m willing to believe that. It just means that the standard statistical methods of science are so weak and…
Do you have anything from a more reliable source?
Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100
#194I'm glad they're putting money into medical research, but I kinda roll my eyes when people make big claims about curing X, especially when X is something incredibly broad like "cancer" or in this case, "all diseases." AI/ML has barely scratched the surface of its potential in medicine, however, I find it naive to think that you can throw AI/ML at any random disease and always get a cure. Even after a century. Will we…
Reminds me of this episode of The Outer Limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Breed_(The_Outer_Limit...
TLDR:
"Andy later discovers that he has pelvic cancer, and has approximately one year to live if the hip and leg are not removed. In desperation he sneaks into Stephen's lab and injects himself with the nanobots" ... "The nanobots continue making "improvements" to Andy, including giving him eyes in the back of his head, bones above his stomach, keen hearing, and jellyfish-like stinging tentacles on his skin."
Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, I know a solution to the obesity crisis....
Eat less, exercise more? Easy to say right, but the simple message isn't working obviously. Obesity levels have doubled over the last 40 years. Its not sporadic either, it's affecting the entire population now. Why is this happening?
Eating less and eating the right things is probably much more effective then exercising more (it takes a lot of work to burn up a donut)... But I'm not saying that exercise is not important for other reasons.
Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100
#196Very nice. Some context: Mark Zuckerberg is worth 55 billion dollars. This is 5% of his net worth. Mark Zuckerberg spent 20bn on Whatsapp. At his 28% shareholding in facebook that's a 5.6bn USD personal commitment. The top 5 global pharma companies spent 42 billion USD on R&D in 2015 alone. Total pharma sector R&D is circa 200 yards. Every singe year. They aren't anywhere near "curing all diseases". This intiative wo…
>The top 5 global pharma companies spent 42 billion USD on R&D in 2015 alone But how much of that spend was actually targeted at curing diseases, versus things like hair loss treatments, erectile dysfunction, type 2 diabetes, or other first world problems? It's well known that big pharma corps generally ignore the low hanging fruit of curable third world diseases because there is no monetary incentive for it. See why…
While we've been dealing with Ebola for decades, it was characterized as both a highly sporadic and largely self-limiting disease, and not particularly endemic.
Horrible as it is, that's not a great target for a vaccine. Especially not an expensive, hard to administer one. So it remained largely of academic and specialized interest.
The recent Ebola outbreak was a recontextualization of Ebola, from a sometimes scary disease where it would be handy to have an infrequently used vaccine for special circumstances to "This might be an endemic disease in West Africa".
Yes, throwing money at it helped, but it's hardly the only reason priorities shifted.
I'll also note that there's promising work on Dengue Fever vaccines, which are third world diseases, and most of the diseases that are near-term eradication targets are third world diseases. Often these challenges aren't "Pharma hasn't developed a drug yet" but "How do we get this drug to everyone?"
Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-ou... He quotes Eliezer Yudkowsky: Parapsychologists are constantly protesting that they are playing by all the standard scientific rules, and yet their results are being ignored – that they are unfairly being held to higher standards than everyone else. I’m willing to believe that. It just means that the standard statistical methods of science are so weak and…
Do you have anything from a more reliable source?
I included a reliable source! Click my link to yesterday's HN story. It is an interview with John P.A. Ioannidis, "who is a professor at Stanford University and one of the most highly cited researchers in the world".
Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectfully, I disagree. The fundamental discoveries necessary for the nuclear bomb weren't discover until after Leo Szilard [0] proposed the weapon. Given that none of us were alive between 1906 and 1945 it's hard to fully grasp how the scientific understanding evolved over those 39 years. Einstein's work paved the way for Leo Szilard's vision but that vision was in no way a given. If it weren't for WWII, and Einst…
The discovery of fission was not the product of the Manhattan Project but a continuation of research into the atomic nucleus that had been proceeding for decades. Once that happened, Einstein's theory told you that the process would release a large amount of energy, and a bomb became simply an engineering task. By the time someone wrote a check, the basic mechanism of the runaway fission reaction was understood. That…
I don't know where you see me stating that the discovery fission was a result of the Manhattan Project, it was a predecessor. The order of actions was: Einsteins Relativity -> Leo's Bomb Patent -> Discovery of Fission -> Manhattan Project -> Bomb.
> By the time someone wrote a check, the basic mechanism of the runaway fission reaction was understood.
I find that to be a gross simplification. I would challenge that the basic mechanisms of the fission reaction were as well understood then as we understand the basic mechanisms behind cancerous mutations now.
> There is no ready-to-go idea you can point to and say "if we spent $20 billion building this it's have a coin-toss's chance of curing cancer."
Over what time-horizon? We've achieved a great deal in the last 100 years that would have received less than a coin-toss probability if one were to be having this same argument in the early 1900s. The Haber Process [0] is a great example of something that we had no way of expecting we could accomplish (the energy efficiency aspect) before it happened.
What would you prefer Zuckerberg does with his money? I mean, he could build a massive yacht like Jobs before he died... As a species we have consistently accomplished feats that were as unlikely as the mitochondrial symbiosis that allowed us to exist in the first place, is there a reason to discount our abilities to continue this trend?
Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100
#199Not to take the wind out of anyone's sails, but there is a concern to be raised about relying more and more on charities to fund the public good. When a democratically elected government funds the public good, at least in theory, the public at large has a small say in choosing what counts as "public good". When you leave it to charity, you're relying on the morals of individual wealthy donors to decide what counts as…
Why do you assume that government politicians and bureaucrats have a higher moral position to decide what counts as public good?
Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguable. We can only compare difficulty after the fact, if Einstein hadn't rolled along with relativity and 3 decade gap for research, the atomic bomb wouldn't have been possible. There may be a 'relativity' level discovery in biology/aging/cancer that will change the historic perspective. We can't know until after the fact.
Just from a data volume perspective cancer and atomic bombs are magnitudes apart. Throw in the fact that cancer evolves and understanding those mutations requires unraveling millions of years of evolution and you've got a doozy.
I strongly believe that our analytic capabilities (as a species) have grown by orders of magnitude since we built the bomb.
My entire point was that the bomb wasn't a given in it's day (in spite of what the retrospective belief seems to be), just because something is out of our grasp now doesn't mean we won't reach it if we try.