Why haven't biologists cured cancer? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#61

Post by glial » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 5:27 AM UTC

petermcneeley wrote: post #54

killjoywashere wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pathologist here (doctor who diagnoses cancer), who happens to have a degree in physics and works on diagnostic ML problems, including cancer. Cancer is not a simple anomaly detection problem. I mean, there's that, but so much more. These cells, each one of them, by their very nature, looks exactly like your normal healthy cells, on the outside. It's what's inside the cell that's going to kill you. The uncontrolled r…

A biopsy is predicated on the idea that you can identify good from bad. You might not be able to identify the origin cell but you would be able to pick out metastasization. You certainly can take pictures. And not to be too reductive: cells are visible in a light microscope. The point is that the scale that cells are at is not really at the quantum level. People have been interacting with individual cells for decades…

Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/793/

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#62

Post by raincole » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 5:28 AM UTC

petermcneeley wrote: post #40

Zenzero wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. (Doctor here) Im not sure who the target audience is for the article, but it strikes me as one where if the author were more knowledgeable on the subject, they would have many of the answers to what they are asking. It reads to me like someone writing "why are there still bugs in programming? Is it because of too many buttons on the screens?" Im in agreement with you that most people don't grasp just how medicin…

Most of the body is cells. Most of cancer would be rogue cells. Cancer can be cured if you can: 1. Identify rogue cells 2. Destroy the rogue cells. You can use technology to do both and pretty much ignore biology.

https://xkcd.com/793/

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#63

Post by jyscao » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 5:32 AM UTC

thesimpleone wrote: post #28

There have been many cures that get buried due to not being able to make money from them

Not sure about the many cures that have been buried. But chemotherapy & radiotherapy, both of which do more harm than good, are two huge money makers indeed.

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#64

Post by petermcneeley » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 5:36 AM UTC

Zenzero wrote: post #59

petermcneeley wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A biopsy is predicated on the idea that you can identify good from bad. You might not be able to identify the origin cell but you would be able to pick out metastasization. You certainly can take pictures. And not to be too reductive: cells are visible in a light microscope. The point is that the scale that cells are at is not really at the quantum level. People have been interacting with individual cells for decades…

Imagine thinking you're teaching a pathologist anything about evaluating neoplastic cells.... Like even as a doctor who's not a pathologist I wouldn't dare because I know just how much I don't know compared to them. A CS grad thinking they can jump in on that is peak tech-centric hubris.

Appeals to authority tend not to fly in a hacker community which is all about questioning authority and the status quo. It is usually much better to respond with logic and refutation.

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#65

Post by petermcneeley » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 5:38 AM UTC

raincole wrote: post #62

petermcneeley wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the body is cells. Most of cancer would be rogue cells. Cancer can be cured if you can: 1. Identify rogue cells 2. Destroy the rogue cells. You can use technology to do both and pretty much ignore biology.

https://xkcd.com/793/

I feel like this one applies better https://xkcd.com/1831/

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#66

Post by bee_rider » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 5:39 AM UTC

Zenzero wrote: post #59

petermcneeley wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A biopsy is predicated on the idea that you can identify good from bad. You might not be able to identify the origin cell but you would be able to pick out metastasization. You certainly can take pictures. And not to be too reductive: cells are visible in a light microscope. The point is that the scale that cells are at is not really at the quantum level. People have been interacting with individual cells for decades…

Imagine thinking you're teaching a pathologist anything about evaluating neoplastic cells.... Like even as a doctor who's not a pathologist I wouldn't dare because I know just how much I don't know compared to them. A CS grad thinking they can jump in on that is peak tech-centric hubris.

We get pretty arrogant for sure, but from an outsider point of view at least this looks more like somebody pitching a perpetual motion machine to physicists, rather than typical tech-centric hubris.

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#67

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 5:44 AM UTC

petermcneeley wrote: post #40

Zenzero wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. (Doctor here) Im not sure who the target audience is for the article, but it strikes me as one where if the author were more knowledgeable on the subject, they would have many of the answers to what they are asking. It reads to me like someone writing "why are there still bugs in programming? Is it because of too many buttons on the screens?" Im in agreement with you that most people don't grasp just how medicin…

Most of the body is cells. Most of cancer would be rogue cells. Cancer can be cured if you can: 1. Identify rogue cells 2. Destroy the rogue cells. You can use technology to do both and pretty much ignore biology.

> Cancer can be cured if you can:

> 1. Identify rogue cells 2. Destroy the rogue cells.

Oh, is that all?:D And which of those do we have the tech to do?

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#68

Post by bowsamic » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 5:47 AM UTC

petermcneeley wrote: post #64

Zenzero wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine thinking you're teaching a pathologist anything about evaluating neoplastic cells.... Like even as a doctor who's not a pathologist I wouldn't dare because I know just how much I don't know compared to them. A CS grad thinking they can jump in on that is peak tech-centric hubris.

Appeals to authority tend not to fly in a hacker community which is all about questioning authority and the status quo. It is usually much better to respond with logic and refutation.

I think you’ve misjudged the culture here

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#69

Post by jghn » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 5:47 AM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #47

This reminds me of the company Loyal - a startup aiming at medical approaches to longevity by first treating pets/dogs. It's easier (I assume) from a regulation/moral standpoint to test therapies on animals instead of humans. I wonder if developing therapies for animal cancers first could be profitable, to bring in investment and prove a theory, and then expand to humans in a similar way.

> It's easier (I assume) from a regulation

You'd be surprised. One of their larger challenges has been that the regulatory environment is very murky. It's definitely not anything goes, but it's not as well roadmapped as it is for human drugs.

Re: Why haven't biologists cured cancer?

#70

Post by Zenzero » Sun, Jul 07, 2024, 5:51 AM UTC

petermcneeley wrote: post #64

Zenzero wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine thinking you're teaching a pathologist anything about evaluating neoplastic cells.... Like even as a doctor who's not a pathologist I wouldn't dare because I know just how much I don't know compared to them. A CS grad thinking they can jump in on that is peak tech-centric hubris.

Appeals to authority tend not to fly in a hacker community which is all about questioning authority and the status quo. It is usually much better to respond with logic and refutation.

I really can't tell if you're trolling at this point but in the chance you aren't, I'll bite.

Appealing to the authority of a pathologist is safe in my book given the subject matter and the education of the counterparty. There is a lower bound of requisite knowledge beneath which it's not worth even trying to entertain your claims about just "find and destroy rogue cells". You can't even begin to respond with logic and refutation if you haven't achieved anything close to the level of expertise required to be certified as a pathologist. Coming in here trying to play the angle of "well just model with supercomputers" isn't the winning ticket. Contrary to stereotypes of computer-illiterate doctors, there are some wicked smart people working in medicine (I've met and befriended many) and I guarantee your genius approach was considered and abandoned decades ago.