Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate

Just to clarify, I followed up "you can have people who are bad at science but are good at fundraising in public," with "and you can have people with very good science who are bad at fundraising," and I think you probably have a lot more of the latter than the former, which I perceive as the larger injustice. I didn't mean to come across as a downer on the project. I was clear to point out that I know very little about the team behind the Immunity Project and definitely wasn't in a position to evaluate the quality of their science; I was speaking very generally. Even if these projects are unsuccessful, anything that gets the public excited about science is probably a good thing, as long as high-profile failures (which are inevitable; welcome to biology) don't lead to a backlash and general burnout.

Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate

#5

Post by Fomite » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 7:10 PM UTC

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #2

Sometimes when it sounds too good to be true... Are there any real researches behind this project?

That there isn't a single, in press or published paper supporting this research, when the amount of evidence you have to bring to the table for your average NIH grant is staggering set off some red flags for me.

Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate

#6

Post by Fomite » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 7:12 PM UTC

frisco wrote: post #4

Just to clarify, I followed up "you can have people who are bad at science but are good at fundraising in public," with "and you can have people with very good science who are bad at fundraising," and I think you probably have a lot more of the latter than the former, which I perceive as the larger injustice. I didn't mean to come across as a downer on the project. I was clear to point out that I know very little abo…

My issue is the examples in the article are also extremely limited. These are "Kickstarter"-type crowdfunding ventures. Immunity Project is backed by YC, and the Perlstein Lab is for all intents and purposes acting like a regular biotech startup. Those are both pretty narrow opportunity bands.

Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate

#7

Post by dnautics » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 7:23 PM UTC

frisco wrote: post #4

Just to clarify, I followed up "you can have people who are bad at science but are good at fundraising in public," with "and you can have people with very good science who are bad at fundraising," and I think you probably have a lot more of the latter than the former, which I perceive as the larger injustice. I didn't mean to come across as a downer on the project. I was clear to point out that I know very little abo…

"you can have people who are bad at science but are good at fundraising in public,"

You can also have people who are bad at science and are good at obtaining NIH grants. In my professional opinion, this characterizes a LOT of researchers out there. Which is the greater injustice?

Dis?claimer: I happen to think that I'm good at science and indeed I failed at a crowdfunding attempt.

Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate

#8

Post by mbreese » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 7:26 PM UTC

frisco wrote: post #4

Just to clarify, I followed up "you can have people who are bad at science but are good at fundraising in public," with "and you can have people with very good science who are bad at fundraising," and I think you probably have a lot more of the latter than the former, which I perceive as the larger injustice. I didn't mean to come across as a downer on the project. I was clear to point out that I know very little abo…

Since your username and your actual name from the article aren't very similar, you should probably add something that says - "Hey, I was the one quoted in the article".

Just in case people don't put two and two together or don't click to see your HN profile.

Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate

#9

Post by dnautics » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 7:27 PM UTC

Fomite wrote: post #5

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #2

Sometimes when it sounds too good to be true... Are there any real researches behind this project?

That there isn't a single, in press or published paper supporting this research, when the amount of evidence you have to bring to the table for your average NIH grant is staggering set off some red flags for me.

They have enough data to have completed an INDA and are proceeding to phase I clinical trials. That's a much, much higher bar than an NIH grant. Paper publication is not necessarily a useful metric.

Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate

#10

Post by Fomite » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 7:37 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #9

Fomite wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That there isn't a single, in press or published paper supporting this research, when the amount of evidence you have to bring to the table for your average NIH grant is staggering set off some red flags for me.

They have enough data to have completed an INDA and are proceeding to phase I clinical trials. That's a much, much higher bar than an NIH grant. Paper publication is not necessarily a useful metric.

A number of NIH grants fund clinical trials. I direct you to the R34 mechanism, which is for Phase III trials as an example.

And when you're evaluating science, the paper itself, in the literature, is the only real way to evaluate it's quality.