Working in genetics, which was putting aside nanophysics, began as necessity coming in it's most immediate form; given a new name in the form of an acronym and a clock marking the period I would certainly be on the door of, a second value on the clock was a 3 month window represented in how long it would take to reach the other side of the door, that door we all go through at some point. It was 2011, age 30, and woul…
This is a very confusing and eerie post. It sets off "scammer" red flags as well.
The account is 303 days old, and this its only post.
Back in 2011, there was an announcement from MIT about a new approach to a broad-spectrum antiviral that appeared to work.[1] This goes way beyond an AIDS-specific cure. But it was at MIT Lincoln Labs, which doesn't usually do bio. So the researcher moved to Draper Labs, but didn't get much funding. Then that funding ran out. Now the guy behind this is trying to get funding on Indiegogo.[3] The problem seems to be th…
The reason this isn't getting funded is because it's extremely unlikely to work in reality. They've engineered synthetic protein sensors of dsRNA that induce apoptosis on detection - this mimics the natural viral detection systems that all cells use to prevent viral infection. The argued benefit is that this artificial protein avoids the common hacks that many viruses use to circumvent the natural detection pathways.…
>There's a reason some ideas are left unexplored by industry.
But your argument essentially boils down to "We haven't yet discovered an effective delivery method, therefore this technique will never work".
Isn't that one of the basic problems facing all clinical genetic modification research? Is it unreasonable to assume that this problem could be solved by some future breakthrough, or does it somehow violate the laws of physics? If so, should we then discard all basic science research in this field because there is no clear route to market?
Back in 2011, there was an announcement from MIT about a new approach to a broad-spectrum antiviral that appeared to work.[1] This goes way beyond an AIDS-specific cure. But it was at MIT Lincoln Labs, which doesn't usually do bio. So the researcher moved to Draper Labs, but didn't get much funding. Then that funding ran out. Now the guy behind this is trying to get funding on Indiegogo.[3] The problem seems to be th…
Given billionaires running their own space programs it makes me wonder why there aren't more billionaires running biologic research companies. Between life extension and immunity to (or protection from) really pathological conditions it seems like their interests would be aligned with folks like this.
>Given billionaires running their own space programs it makes me wonder why there aren't more billionaires running biologic research companies.
I really think the whole "It's not Rocket Science" cliche would be better suited as "It's not Biology".
Back in 2011, there was an announcement from MIT about a new approach to a broad-spectrum antiviral that appeared to work.[1] This goes way beyond an AIDS-specific cure. But it was at MIT Lincoln Labs, which doesn't usually do bio. So the researcher moved to Draper Labs, but didn't get much funding. Then that funding ran out. Now the guy behind this is trying to get funding on Indiegogo.[3] The problem seems to be th…
The reason this isn't getting funded is because it's extremely unlikely to work in reality. They've engineered synthetic protein sensors of dsRNA that induce apoptosis on detection - this mimics the natural viral detection systems that all cells use to prevent viral infection. The argued benefit is that this artificial protein avoids the common hacks that many viruses use to circumvent the natural detection pathways.…
Sounds like if it is attempted it will violate, to put it mildly, some ethical barriers...
The reason this isn't getting funded is because it's extremely unlikely to work in reality. They've engineered synthetic protein sensors of dsRNA that induce apoptosis on detection - this mimics the natural viral detection systems that all cells use to prevent viral infection. The argued benefit is that this artificial protein avoids the common hacks that many viruses use to circumvent the natural detection pathways.…
>There's a reason some ideas are left unexplored by industry. But your argument essentially boils down to "We haven't yet discovered an effective delivery method, therefore this technique will never work". Isn't that one of the basic problems facing all clinical genetic modification research? Is it unreasonable to assume that this problem could be solved by some future breakthrough, or does it somehow violate the law…
It's more "We haven't yet discovered an effective delivery method, therefore this technique is in the same place as a hundred other techniques that kill things in cell cultures."
No, this hasn't gotten anywhere near human testing yet. The FDA isn't involved.
FDA rules increase barriers to entry to the market, resulting in fewer companies (especially fewer smaller companies) who would be interested in funding such a project.
If you got DRACO to work in animals, there isn't a pharmaceutical company (or VC) on the planet that wouldn't buy you a small island just to get you to the table. This is probably the worst example you could choose for trying to demonstrate FDA regulations chilling development next to CRISPR.
It's the in vitro -> in vivo part that they're anxious about wasting money on, not the FDA process.
Could try for market pressure - for example, that male birth control being developed in India we keep hearing about. I bet it'll get approved here faster than normal because of how desired it is.
Related anecdote: to this day, in Japan access to the Pill remains limited because of vague "safety" concerns, despite decades of use. However, when Viagra appeared, it was approved in months...
Well, they do have a shrinking population problem...
Gene therapy (and CRISPR) is ultimately going to eliminate most if not every ailment/issue/genetic problem that we have, including aging and eye problems. Very thankful we are reaching the point where we can go into our cells and fix ourselves.
I dedicated a significant fraction of my life to the idea that gene therapy would become a viable medical treatment. It seems unlikely to really become a high-impact treatment. Being able to change DNA in cells is one thing; actually being able to show your treatment does what it's supposed to and didn't have negative effects is hard. There are a limited number of diseases where gene therapy should work great, but th…
Would you elaborate on what makes a disease a good fit and these grand-challenge class problems?
The reason this isn't getting funded is because it's extremely unlikely to work in reality. They've engineered synthetic protein sensors of dsRNA that induce apoptosis on detection - this mimics the natural viral detection systems that all cells use to prevent viral infection. The argued benefit is that this artificial protein avoids the common hacks that many viruses use to circumvent the natural detection pathways.…
>There's a reason some ideas are left unexplored by industry. But your argument essentially boils down to "We haven't yet discovered an effective delivery method, therefore this technique will never work". Isn't that one of the basic problems facing all clinical genetic modification research? Is it unreasonable to assume that this problem could be solved by some future breakthrough, or does it somehow violate the law…
I fully support basic science pursuing crazy ideas. I think this is a very interesting piece of basic science, it's just at an incredibly speculative stage that's unsuitable for clinical investment. Efficient delivery of novel proteins into a cell by genetic methods, nanoparticles, or direct transduction is -the- challenge for a lot of novel ideas. Massive effort is ongoing to find breakthroughs here. The proteins in this study face this challenge, but there are other serious issues as well:
- Introducing a large amount of a foreign protein, esp. some with viral domains in them, potentially carries risk of an adverse immune reaction... especially since these proteins might quickly transduce themselves into antigen presenting cells.
- Most importantly, for a viral prophylactic, it's not clear that the short persistence of these proteins in the cell really makes for an effective approach to defend against viruses.
- If you administer it acutely to try and slow an ongoing infection in a stimulated immune system, I suspect the body would raise antibodies against the proteins, preventing them from being used again.