41–50 of 167 posts
Fascinating paper on returns on cancer research out of the NBER argues that for about $300 billion in cancer research expenditures from 1988 to 2000 the US created 23 million life-years worth, in aggregate, about $1.9 trillion [1]. That comes to about a 52% smoothed return. Pretty good given that the S&P 500 grew at about 14.6% over the same period (though if similarly smoothed yielded about 42%). [1] http://www.nber…
The National Cancer Institute's average yearly budget for cancer research is around $4.9 billion. NFL football revenue? $9 billion. Priorities.
As it turns out, people's priorities are making money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the point of living if you can't have a little fun? Living merely for the sake of living is pointless.
Its odd. I was quite curious to float this opinion in this crowd. It is of course, wildly unpopular among the non-geeks in my "regular" life. I wondered if it would also be so here. Affirmative. It always seemed to me that we should "take care of our business" first, and then play later. To see these numbers backwards (IMHO) struck me as a childish "play first " attitude. I wouldn't go so far as to say "cancel sports…
I don't cut out fun entirely, but I do tend to overwork. I'll be dead soon and have no recollection of 'fun', so I tend to prioritize/maximize my traversal time spent doing academic 'activities' (which are rewarding in their own right).
I still require a basal level of fun to stay sane, though; it would be interesting to quantify it...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that it's unlikely that medical research is less well funded than sports. I do think it's plausible that "critical" medical research (excluding ailments like small-penis and spring allergies) is less well funded than sports, for some reasonable definition of "critical", but I'd be unwilling to put any money one way or the other without doing a bit more research. I will say, however, that pharmaceutical compan…
When you say "better funded than sports", you're implicating advertising. But advertising revenue is in part of function of the broader economy. F-500s don't buy Super Bowl ads because they love football.
But the point is that when we, as a society, allocate resources this way, it is an indication of pathological economic behavior, and we need to find solutions for that.
This is one of the most fascinating and frightening things I have ever read. It really feels like staring cthulhu in the face. TLDR: Breast cancers, for instance, have been shown to harbor at least 1,700 different mutations, but only three of them showed up in at least 10% of patients, with the great majority of them being unique to each patient. The most recent study in Nature discussed above shows that even a singl…
This is one of the most fascinating and frightening things I have ever read. It really feels like staring cthulhu in the face. TLDR: Breast cancers, for instance, have been shown to harbor at least 1,700 different mutations, but only three of them showed up in at least 10% of patients, with the great majority of them being unique to each patient. The most recent study in Nature discussed above shows that even a singl…
Cancer isn't like a virus or pathogen that has evolved to avoid it our immune systems and treatments as it passes from individual. It is a degenerative state of the same system that produces healthy cells and fertile humans.
It is genetically very diverse. Part of this is because cancers cells often have mesed up chromosomal replication which produces more variability. Part of this may be because numerous genetic variations can have similar effects because they effect the same gene or network of genes.
As the author alludes to at the end of the paper, there are a number of things a tumor must do to be successful. These include avoiding the immune system, avoiding programed cell death, recruiting blood vessels/nutrients etc. There has been lots of really promising research in the last few years that looks at analyzing and targeting the pathways that control these things.
Further as projects like the the Cancer Genome Atlas (which I work on as a Software Engineer) produce terabytes of data about cancer, we are able to apply modern data analysis to better understand the system, hopefully discovering what separates the biochemical state of an aggressive cancer from one the body handles without issue which will hopefully lead to some novel drug targets.
... Because PhD's can barely feed themselves. ... Because the "smart" people work on Wall Street/for consulting firms. ... Because Facebook acquired Instagram.
-Grad school for 5-8 years, averaging around 7 for most molecular and cellular biologists. You make $23-28k a year depending on where you live. You steal whatever free food is lying around your department
-Post graduation, you obtain a Post-Doc position for ~2 years (if everything goes well). This pays ~40k/year, again varying depending on region.
-If you got lucky and had a successful Post-doc, skip to the next bullet. Otherwise, go back to the last bullet for another 2-8 years.
-Get a junior professor tenure-track position. Salary is much better, probably around 60-80k. You have five years to prove you are awesome. At five years, go to the next bullet
-Tenure review! How many awesome papers did you publish?
---Not enough? go try again at a different university...hopefully your family is willing to relocate or there is one nearby. If you fail tenure review twice, you get to be an adjunct professor (zero job security, crap salary) for the rest of your life.
---Well, you don't completely suck...so we are giving you another two years to prove tenure. Go back to the last bullet.
---Wow! You got tenure! Welcome to the elite minority that actually make tenure. You get a nice salary bump up to 100-150k, have total job security, do zero science anymore (glorified manager now) and are probably in your 40's. Feels good, huh?
And people wonder why things are slow in biology? If this was a sales funnel, you would notice hideous conversion rates between all the steps. People burn out because of intense competition for few spots, crappy salary and crappy hours.
If you work finance, you may work 90 hour weeks but at least you make lots of money. In biology...you work 70 hour weeks for food stamps and the hope of getting tenure when you are 40.
The National Cancer Institute's average yearly budget for cancer research is around $4.9 billion. NFL football revenue? $9 billion. Priorities.
Priorities.
[1]: http://www.rbm.who.int/gmap/1-4.html
edit: That's worldwide funding for Malaria. The US gives only a small fraction of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the point in singling out sports entertainment? Apple cleared $100bb predominately selling consumer electronics, should everyone who bought an iPad feel bad for not donating that $600 to cancer research? Facebook just threw a billion around on a photo sharing company. Microsoft just threw a billion so it could acquire some more patent ammunition. Everyday billions and billions of dollars are thrown around to b…
Heh.. Perhaps you might use an apple computer to help cure cancer and you probably wouldn't use a football? >who gets to decide what spending is "right" and what's "wrong?" None. Noone. Perhaps not wrong. Interesting though. Sorry guys, guess I kind of ran this one right off the rails. We underspend on medical research proportionally. That was all. I just tried to pick something a little more interesting than the TSA…
This is one of the most fascinating and frightening things I have ever read. It really feels like staring cthulhu in the face. TLDR: Breast cancers, for instance, have been shown to harbor at least 1,700 different mutations, but only three of them showed up in at least 10% of patients, with the great majority of them being unique to each patient. The most recent study in Nature discussed above shows that even a singl…
All this genetic diversity seems daunting at first but I think it is also indicative of something that gives me great hope. Cancer isn't like a virus or pathogen that has evolved to avoid it our immune systems and treatments as it passes from individual. It is a degenerative state of the same system that produces healthy cells and fertile humans. It is genetically very diverse. Part of this is because cancers cells o…
Cancer cells change the way they metabolize oxygen in a way that promotes their survival. In laboratory studies of isolated cancer cells grown in tissue culture, DCA restores the original metabolism, and promotes their self-destruction. This has led to the use of DCA for treating cancer, by individuals experimenting with it themselves, by doctors administering it to patients as a non-approved drug, by scientists testing it in cancer tissue cultures in cell culture and in mice, and in human Phase II studies. DCA has improved certain biochemical parameters, but it has not demonstrated improved survival.
Cancer cells generally express increased glycolysis, because they rely on anaerobic respiration that occurs in the cytosol (lactic acid fermentation) rather than oxidative phosphorylation in the mitochondria for energy (the Warburg effect), as a result of hypoxia that exists in tumors and malfunctioning mitochondria. [9] [10] Usually dangerously damaged cells kill themselves via apoptosis, a mechanism of self-destruction that involves mitochondria, but this mechanism fails in cancer cells. A phase I study published in January 2007 by researchers at the University of Alberta, who had tested DCA on human[11] cancer cells grown in mice, found that DCA restored mitochondrial function, thus restoring apoptosis, allowing cancer cells to self-destruct and shrink the tumor.[12] These results received extensive media attention, beginning with an article in New Scientist titled "Cheap, ‘safe’ drug kills most cancers".[11] Subsequently, the American Cancer Society and other medical organizations have received a large volume of public interest and questions regarding DCA.[13] Clinical trials in humans with cancer have not been conducted in the USA and are not yet final in Canada, emphasizing the need for caution in interpreting the preliminary results.[13][14]