Live data from Hacker News

The Quant King, the Drug Hunter, and the Quest to Unlock New Cures

bloomberg.com

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: The Quant King, the Drug Hunter, and the Quest to Unlock New Cures

#31
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure why you consider it a great deal of waste. Building better models that simulate a human biological process must have some sort of payoff? It increases human knowledge, and should provide a foundation on which others can build.

> Building better models that simulate a human biological process must have some sort of payoff? It increases human knowledge, and should provide a foundation on which others can build. That really is still not clear for the models described in the article. In reality, these models are rehashes of what Murcko was having people do 25 years ago. Big articles were written about Vertex applying Free Energy Perturbation w…

Great context. You don't have to go too far back in the archives of this site to find discussion on Andy Grove's similar big project to use in silico to destroy traditional pharma discovery. We haven't heard much from that project since.

Re: The Quant King, the Drug Hunter, and the Quest to Unlock New Cures

#32

For this stage of drug discovery (finding potential hits off of ligand databases, finding potential targets, and refining ligands in silico without running real high-throughput lab work) machine learning may work better at lesser cost. It's the direction (some) research is going right now. Of course the real cost of drug development is running clinical trials, and losing something like 90% of ligands because they don…

[deleted]

Re: The Quant King, the Drug Hunter, and the Quest to Unlock New Cures

#33
I don't understand companies like this. Its founder is worth something like $5b, but instead of financing this venture with a tiny fraction of his net worth, Shaw decided to go get funding from several other firms. I understand the idea that a strategic partnership can add value, but having complete control of a company is also very valuable, and I don't know why Shaw wants to just give that away when it would cost him very little to not do it.

Re: The Quant King, the Drug Hunter, and the Quest to Unlock New Cures

#34
post #3
post #2

It really remains to be seen whether these approaches will make any difference in efficacy or cost of pharmaceuticals. Blindly thinking that having better simulations of proteins and drugs is going to solve any of the hard problems has led to a great deal of waste.

I’m not sure why you consider it a great deal of waste. Building better models that simulate a human biological process must have some sort of payoff? It increases human knowledge, and should provide a foundation on which others can build.

I am highly supportive of DE Shaw's efforts to make the world better. On the other hand, OP has a point: many of these sorts of things actually do not have a payoff. I knew some guys working on protein folding in the 90s. No payoff. One of 'em must be close to retiring by now. Shaw offered me a job to do an innovative kind of FTIR back when I graduated in 2004. Pretty sure that didn't pay off either. For that matter Shaw's original research was into the 'transputer' which also didn't pay off. The man's a risk taker, and perfectly entitled to spend his post tax income on whatever he likes. But a lot of science and stuff is dead ends, and, of course, avoiding known dead ends. Might very well be a dead end. He's been dumping considerable resources into this project since 2001; that's rather a long time ago now.

Re: The Quant King, the Drug Hunter, and the Quest to Unlock New Cures

#35

For this stage of drug discovery (finding potential hits off of ligand databases, finding potential targets, and refining ligands in silico without running real high-throughput lab work) machine learning may work better at lesser cost. It's the direction (some) research is going right now. Of course the real cost of drug development is running clinical trials, and losing something like 90% of ligands because they don…

> This goes to show that fundamental research in biochemistry is still needed and we are nowhere near having "cracked the code", genomics notwithstanding.

Personalized medicine is the future. You will find medication that is tweaked slightly at the molecular level to optimize therapeutic effects for the individual as opposed to a population of individuals.

Re: The Quant King, the Drug Hunter, and the Quest to Unlock New Cures

#37

For this stage of drug discovery (finding potential hits off of ligand databases, finding potential targets, and refining ligands in silico without running real high-throughput lab work) machine learning may work better at lesser cost. It's the direction (some) research is going right now. Of course the real cost of drug development is running clinical trials, and losing something like 90% of ligands because they don…

> This goes to show that fundamental research in biochemistry is still needed and we are nowhere near having "cracked the code", genomics notwithstanding. Personalized medicine is the future. You will find medication that is tweaked slightly at the molecular level to optimize therapeutic effects for the individual as opposed to a population of individuals.

How does that happen without $1 billion worth of test requirements from the FDA?

Re: The Quant King, the Drug Hunter, and the Quest to Unlock New Cures

#38
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This goes to show that fundamental research in biochemistry is still needed and we are nowhere near having "cracked the code", genomics notwithstanding. Personalized medicine is the future. You will find medication that is tweaked slightly at the molecular level to optimize therapeutic effects for the individual as opposed to a population of individuals.

How does that happen without $1 billion worth of test requirements from the FDA?

It'll happen abroad, and when people see what they're missing, the FDA will have to change.

Re: The Quant King, the Drug Hunter, and the Quest to Unlock New Cures

#39
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This goes to show that fundamental research in biochemistry is still needed and we are nowhere near having "cracked the code", genomics notwithstanding. Personalized medicine is the future. You will find medication that is tweaked slightly at the molecular level to optimize therapeutic effects for the individual as opposed to a population of individuals.

How does that happen without $1 billion worth of test requirements from the FDA?

There are drug classes where for many reasons, some IP related, there are multiple (all FDA approved) very similar molecules, or the same molecule in different formulations. Those drugs all have some measure of efficacy (otherwise they wouldn't be approved) but there's always somebody in the trial on whom the drug didn't work at all (or somebody who died). Ideally personalized medicine would tell you whether you're that somebody, and you'd pick a different drug.

For most drug classes though the cost of obtaining enough patient information to make the call in the first place, even if it was feasible, is pretty high relative to just giving you a "test" with a given drug. The argument is often made for cancer because the drugs are more expensive and they tend to be given as cocktails (which means, more costs, more side effects). But with the way medicine currently is, it feels like even if hypothetically you could tell from a blood draw and a tumor biopsy that drug 1 is going to be 99% as effective as 4 first-line drugs together, patients for whom that 1% chance means they might die are probably going to go for the cocktail.

It's possible personalized medicine will lead to cheaper trials, and then cheaper approvals. For example instead of saying "I will make a drug that cures (alcoholism/cancer/MS/Alzheimer's) and it has to not kill patients and also happen to cure (alcoholism/cancer/MS/Alzheimer's) in a relatively large subset of the population, that I will spend tens of millions of dollars finding, testing, adjusting, retrying, etc" you could say "I will make a drug that cures dementia in female Caucasian patients between the age of 60 and 70 that have Southern European ancestry, eat a low-carb diet, and have a couple specific DNA markers. I will recruit a smaller sample of this population, get results, and my (much cheaper) drug can get approved for this population. Other, also cheap drugs will follow for (men/Asians/people over 80)." Now you have a feature engineering problem where you get to spend hundreds of millions of dollars paying data scientists to figure out that South European ancestry and some random protein that moves methyl groups around are the categories to structure your trial around. There's no free lunch.

Re: The Quant King, the Drug Hunter, and the Quest to Unlock New Cures

#40
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This goes to show that fundamental research in biochemistry is still needed and we are nowhere near having "cracked the code", genomics notwithstanding. Personalized medicine is the future. You will find medication that is tweaked slightly at the molecular level to optimize therapeutic effects for the individual as opposed to a population of individuals.

How does that happen without $1 billion worth of test requirements from the FDA?

For some patients, the recent "Right to Try" legislation will alleviate this problem, and provide an opportunity for custom-tailored cures. It won't be instantly available to the masses, but it'll provide a path for more experimentation.
Post reply on HN