Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Founder-driven life sciences companies

axial.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies

#31

Post by dekhn »

echelon wrote: post #20
d_silin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bioethiticists will have a field day with you. Also multiple angry mobs from left, right and center.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with what I've proposed. Typically only people that believe in a soul or that humans "should die" take issue. Neither of these is correct in my world view. I can understand the religious perspective, but the romantic idea that limited live spans are good is incredibly twisted. I think people should be immortal, but that's just not feasible. The next best thing is using all of the tool…

THere definitely are a number of things "wrong" with what you've proposed. The first is that society simply wouldn't accept it; by the time people learned what you were doing, the government would make laws against it. People really are averse to growing brainless humans in vats for medical experimention and spare parts.

I'm not interested in "fighting" you,but the reality is that you're starting from a non-starter position that would never fly in the larger general public.

It's not worth debating, because you're absolutely, totally convinced that you're right. Most of us here agree that in principle it would be great to be able to run experiments that truly address human medical problems without ethical concern, but I think "decephalized humans" don't really qualify.

Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies

#32

Post by TomMarius »

dekhn wrote: post #31
echelon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with what I've proposed. Typically only people that believe in a soul or that humans "should die" take issue. Neither of these is correct in my world view. I can understand the religious perspective, but the romantic idea that limited live spans are good is incredibly twisted. I think people should be immortal, but that's just not feasible. The next best thing is using all of the tool…

THere definitely are a number of things "wrong" with what you've proposed. The first is that society simply wouldn't accept it; by the time people learned what you were doing, the government would make laws against it. People really are averse to growing brainless humans in vats for medical experimention and spare parts. I'm not interested in "fighting" you,but the reality is that you're starting from a non-starter p…

Where is the line? Is it okay to use human stem cells for experimentation? Is it okay to grow whole organs for replacement? Is it okay to grow muscles, ears, skin, eyes, bones...? Why is not okay to grow them all at once? I don't see any difference. All of this literally is "decephalized humans", just with more modification/specialization and a simpler process.

We're even growing brain tissue that exhibits actual human-like brain waves for experimentation - how is that okay with you!?

Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies

#33

Post by echelon »

Emergently wrote: post #30
echelon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with what I've proposed. Typically only people that believe in a soul or that humans "should die" take issue. Neither of these is correct in my world view. I can understand the religious perspective, but the romantic idea that limited live spans are good is incredibly twisted. I think people should be immortal, but that's just not feasible. The next best thing is using all of the tool…

I'm an emergency physician and I think what you have proposed is unethical and immoral. Good luck getting any type of experimentation through the Institutional Review Boards(IRB), bioethicists, and scientists. Call us Luddites but this type of science is not looked at kindly. There's no argument or debate to be had when what you are proposing is a red line for many and a non-starter.

> unethical and immoral

Why?

Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies

#34

Post by echelon »

dekhn wrote: post #31
echelon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with what I've proposed. Typically only people that believe in a soul or that humans "should die" take issue. Neither of these is correct in my world view. I can understand the religious perspective, but the romantic idea that limited live spans are good is incredibly twisted. I think people should be immortal, but that's just not feasible. The next best thing is using all of the tool…

THere definitely are a number of things "wrong" with what you've proposed. The first is that society simply wouldn't accept it; by the time people learned what you were doing, the government would make laws against it. People really are averse to growing brainless humans in vats for medical experimention and spare parts. I'm not interested in "fighting" you,but the reality is that you're starting from a non-starter p…

> non-starter position that would never fly in the larger general public

At one point in time the majority of the general public was against gay marriage. Two hundred years ago many were pro slavery. Everyone used to be against cutting up dead bodies so we could learn how they worked, so it was conducted in secrecy.

Most people are illiterate about the science behind this. The benefits are real and substantial. This isn't a money grab or vanity project - it pushes humanity forward a notch, and it should be done.

Anti-vax, anti-GMO, anti-scientific thought shouldn't prevent us from developing a tool that saves countless lives.

Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies

#35

Post by echelon »

goblin89 wrote: post #28
echelon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Placebo research and documented cases of physiological diseases treated via mental health therapy How is cancer something you can fix with mental health therapy? Tell them to go home and feel better, that it'll all be over soon? What about a host of other genetic and immune disorders, many of which can be fatal? I don't mean to come across as harsh or mocking, but there are a host of diseases where your solution do…

> Right now we're attempting to fix issues in prod by looking at another company's software, decompiling it, bit fiddling a bit, then trying to hot patch it into our own production instance. The staging/prod analogy is flawed. What we are doing is manipulating board wiring, while what we could do is further our understanding of and abilities to alter the OS and firmware running on it. Very unfortunately, but understa…

> The staging/prod analogy is flawed.

I agree. Thanks for providing a better one.

> Where is reproducibility, if all we can do is SSH into a snowflake live system

That's the beauty of this, though. You'd have monoclonal lines of decephalized humans. They're not snowflakes.

You'd have knockout lines for studying specific genes, ABO- lines for a blood supply, lines for all the major MHC/HLA for transplants...

If you have twenty identical deceph human clones, you can run your same experiment in duplicate and push for statistically meaningful results.

Over time we'd aim to reduce the costs of the bodies so that they are cheap to expend in individual experiments. That's when it becomes incredibly powerful, when the average researcher can afford these in their budget.

We might learn to control the rate of development. Quickly grow them in a way that doesn't interfere with the experimental results.

Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies

#36

Post by jl2718 »

bionhoward wrote: post #14
jl2718 wrote: post #10

Hi. This is pretty early for this, but I’m looking for some advice for starting a seed fund to advance early-stage startups in cancer immunotherapy. It’s not for me, but someone whom I did some machine learning work, and angel investment with. He’s one of the top names in the field from the early days of cloning to today, veteran of several biotech startups, and likely recent Nobel and Lasker winner advising. There’s…

Noble goal, and I’d suggest the book Basic Immunology, but I’d also warn you, cancer might be a famously difficult disease, but the number of treatments is vast, thus it is difficult to market a new one, because oncologists are overwhelmed by options. There’s an idea for your ML buddy: just imagine rather than make new treatments, you could help docs pick existing treatments from the sea of complex options... Link to…

I personally read Janeway in 2014 when I learned about the problem and started helping with ML models. But the fund isn't mine; it will be run by the leader in the field. He's already heavily invested in a nonprofit that provides physicians and patients with information about leading-edge therapies: https://www.ucir.org/.

Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies

#37

Post by jl2718 »

DrAwdeOccarim wrote: post #23
jl2718 wrote: post #10

Hi. This is pretty early for this, but I’m looking for some advice for starting a seed fund to advance early-stage startups in cancer immunotherapy. It’s not for me, but someone whom I did some machine learning work, and angel investment with. He’s one of the top names in the field from the early days of cloning to today, veteran of several biotech startups, and likely recent Nobel and Lasker winner advising. There’s…

I am relatively new to the cancer IO space, but unless you discovered a new check-point idea (e.g., TIGIT) a lot of the ideas are flushed out already. If you're thinking cell-therapy, there are a number of autologous ideas already on CMC for p1 testing. If you're trying to make TILs angry, or modulate M1/M2 CD11b macrophages, anything that requires transcriptional re-programming, you have a lot of catching up to do.

Most of the stuff you mention here is more biological, which is outside of my full understanding as an ML hobbyist in the area (not my fund, just helping). There is some low-hanging fruit in the portfolio like an improved ligand for an existing checkpoint target. I worked mostly on predicting ligands to stimulate the HLA->APC->TCR->proliferation pathway, mostly using data from binding assays and HPLC/MS isolation. There is a lot just on the computational side that is required to apply well-known vaccination methods to cancer. For seed startups, I'd think it's more likely to find fundable companies making progress on improving the application of existing leading-edge methods than attempting entirely new approaches. CAR-T comes to mind as a prohibitively expensive therapy that invites approaches to reduce cost and improve access, which gives them a simpler path to commercialization than starting with the FDA from scratch. Again, not the expert, not my fund, so I can't comment on the need to catch up, but the people I'm trying to help are some of the luminaries in the field, so I don't think unfamiliarity is the major roadblock; it's more a matter of whether their time is best spent on this or on research.

Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies

#38

Post by goblin89 »

echelon wrote: post #35
goblin89 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right now we're attempting to fix issues in prod by looking at another company's software, decompiling it, bit fiddling a bit, then trying to hot patch it into our own production instance. The staging/prod analogy is flawed. What we are doing is manipulating board wiring, while what we could do is further our understanding of and abilities to alter the OS and firmware running on it. Very unfortunately, but understa…

> The staging/prod analogy is flawed. I agree. Thanks for providing a better one. > Where is reproducibility, if all we can do is SSH into a snowflake live system That's the beauty of this, though. You'd have monoclonal lines of decephalized humans. They're not snowflakes. You'd have knockout lines for studying specific genes, ABO- lines for a blood supply, lines for all the major MHC/HLA for transplants... If you ha…

> That's the beauty of this, though. You'd have monoclonal lines of decephalized humans. They're not snowflakes.

Your approach does not duplicate the OS, only hardware wiring. Again, not to say fiddling with condensers and transistors can’t fix a misbehaving program, but it’s not always the best way to address the issue with fewest side-effects.

Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies

#39

Post by maksimilian »

jl2718 wrote: post #10

Hi. This is pretty early for this, but I’m looking for some advice for starting a seed fund to advance early-stage startups in cancer immunotherapy. It’s not for me, but someone whom I did some machine learning work, and angel investment with. He’s one of the top names in the field from the early days of cloning to today, veteran of several biotech startups, and likely recent Nobel and Lasker winner advising. There’s…

If you are interested, I can connect you with a consultant in the field who works with VCs and young biotechs. Really great to work with and if he can't help you out, I am sure he knows someone who can help you.

Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies

#40

Post by jl2718 »

maksimilian wrote: post #39
jl2718 wrote: post #10

Hi. This is pretty early for this, but I’m looking for some advice for starting a seed fund to advance early-stage startups in cancer immunotherapy. It’s not for me, but someone whom I did some machine learning work, and angel investment with. He’s one of the top names in the field from the early days of cloning to today, veteran of several biotech startups, and likely recent Nobel and Lasker winner advising. There’s…

If you are interested, I can connect you with a consultant in the field who works with VCs and young biotechs. Really great to work with and if he can't help you out, I am sure he knows someone who can help you.

Please send this info through one of the methods listed here: https://acir.org/contact Thank you.
Post reply on HN