Neuroscientist Ben Barres has died
med.stanford.edu
Neuroscientist Ben Barres has died
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Neuroscientist Ben Barres has died
#2“died on Dec. 27, 20 months after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He was 63.”
A form of cancer where we have made almost zero progress. What’s it going to take to get more research?
It has already been 10 years: https://www.cmu.edu/randyslecture/
Re: Neuroscientist Ben Barres has died
#3“died on Dec. 27, 20 months after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He was 63.” A form of cancer where we have made almost zero progress. What’s it going to take to get more research? It has already been 10 years: https://www.cmu.edu/randyslecture/
it’s not like people aren’t trying. it’s just a real bastard of a disease.
Re: Neuroscientist Ben Barres has died
#4> “If you took the Barres lab out of the field of glial studies, there would be no field,” Raff said.
The highest of compliments. RIP
Re: Neuroscientist Ben Barres has died
#5“died on Dec. 27, 20 months after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He was 63.” A form of cancer where we have made almost zero progress. What’s it going to take to get more research? It has already been 10 years: https://www.cmu.edu/randyslecture/
it’s not like people aren’t trying. it’s just a real bastard of a disease.
I didn’t say people weren’t trying. I was asking for more research. Pancreatic cancer is not generously funded. Most would argue that it’s underfunded.
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-doe...
https://www.cancer.org/research/currently-funded-cancer-rese...
Re: Neuroscientist Ben Barres has died
#6The best know transgender scientist
Re: Neuroscientist Ben Barres has died
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
it’s not like people aren’t trying. it’s just a real bastard of a disease.
I didn’t say people weren’t trying. I was asking for more research. Pancreatic cancer is not generously funded. Most would argue that it’s underfunded. https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-doe... https://www.cancer.org/research/currently-funded-cancer-rese...
It's not just funding.
For one, the dynamics of the known molecular pathways involved are complex [1], and so far non-trivial to manipulate.
Furthermore, even with an actionable mechanism, targeting the tumor itself is highly non-trivial, due to physiology alone. (See e.g. [2]).
Re: Neuroscientist Ben Barres has died
#8> “If you took the Barres lab out of the field of glial studies, there would be no field,” Raff said. The highest of compliments. RIP
Prior to his insights, glia were just thought to be little more than structural support and insulation for neurons. The truth of course is so much more interesting.
Baruch dayan emet.
Re: Neuroscientist Ben Barres has died
#9“died on Dec. 27, 20 months after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He was 63.” A form of cancer where we have made almost zero progress. What’s it going to take to get more research? It has already been 10 years: https://www.cmu.edu/randyslecture/
It's a difficult problem etc etc
The real answer is that the life sciences are currently in a medieval phase. It's like doing physics without algebra or calculus. We should certainly not expect any regular progress. It is extraordinarily inefficient.
Re: Neuroscientist Ben Barres has died
#10“died on Dec. 27, 20 months after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He was 63.” A form of cancer where we have made almost zero progress. What’s it going to take to get more research? It has already been 10 years: https://www.cmu.edu/randyslecture/
Problem is also that it is not easy to diagnose in early stages, so you end up with most patients diagnosed in stage 4.