Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

news.keckmedicine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 167 posts

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#51

Post by amanaplanacanal »

tracker1 wrote: post #47
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment is NOT limited to citizens in the US. It just isn't. Why would it be? Free speech, free press, and freedom of religion applies to everybody.

And what happens to spies caught in the US? Again, why would you expect something significantly different for a subversive foreign adversary in the nation on a Visa? "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."

I think you misunderstand the line you quoted. That means consequences from other private citizens, not from the government.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#52

Post by radu_floricica »

searine wrote: post #13
cowmix wrote: post #7

[flagged]

And for some reason a contingent of HN is cheering it on. We are breaking the innovation machine and pretending discoveries will just keep happening.

I'm probably part of the contingent you're alluding to. I'm not cheering. I am however a lot less likely to be depressed, mostly because whenever I tried to fact check a doom-like piece of news, I found it failing, hard. So now I'm at a "once every three months" rotation - which will of course change the first time I manage to confirm a piece of news.

I am moderately pessimistic about the state of research because I do hear things I don't like, but this is compensated by my belief that US academia has a ridiculous amount of institutional entropy, and I'm perfectly willing with temporary issues if this means at least some of the long term problems will be improved. So overall... cautiously optimistic? Long term at least. Is that cheering?

And since the grandparent also mentioned visas - here at least I have a pretty simple opinion. Congress should step up and reform immigration laws. They've avoided doing this for decades, and it's kinda useless to put the blame anywhere else. (for context I'm not american, and my country just had the visa waiver canceled this year by the current administration, so I'm actually on the other side of the fence).

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#53

Post by 1over137 »

searine wrote: post #13
cowmix wrote: post #7

[flagged]

And for some reason a contingent of HN is cheering it on. We are breaking the innovation machine and pretending discoveries will just keep happening.

>And for some reason a contingent of HN is cheering it on.

Seems easily understood. Only 5% of humanity are USians, for the rest, 'your loss is our gain'. Where cowmix wishes for all the brilliant minds to come to the US, the countries that lose those people call it a 'brain drain', and the reduction of that brain drain is most welcome.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#54

Post by tracker1 »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #51
tracker1 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what happens to spies caught in the US? Again, why would you expect something significantly different for a subversive foreign adversary in the nation on a Visa? "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."

I think you misunderstand the line you quoted. That means consequences from other private citizens, not from the government.

And you didn't answer the question I asked more than once. Why would you expect a significantly different result for a subversive foreign influence on a Visa vs an otherwise disclosed spy? There are plenty of limitations to Visa holders.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#55

Post by codr7 »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #15
tiahura wrote: post #4

“almost half the patients were cancer-free a year later.”

That's one way of looking at the glass half empty. If half of people get rid of cancer for 1 year that is still outstanding - ESPECIALLY if the majority of those remain cancer free for quite some time after.

If we wanted patients to survive long term, then maybe we could try a treatment that doesn't destroy their immune system in the process.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#56

Post by beowulfey »

MisterMower wrote: post #37
beowulfey wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Why would companies pay for basic research? They used to get that research for free. 2) Very few schools have endowments that are large enough to support current faculty research costs; even Harvard can only support all research off their endowment for about a year. 3) Endowments are now taxed, so they will have even less available for research.

1) Because ROI on that investment is still positive, even if it used to be “free”. 2) Endowments aren’t the only way to fund research, and not all research is equally valuable. Some is probably negative value, given the replication crisis. 3) Investment income from the endowment is taxed at a maximum of 8%. If that’s enough to break the US university research machine, I’m not sure it was ever working in the first pla…

Thanks for your comments.

The ROI is not positive because there is no guarantee basic science will lead to any money-making outcome. That's not how basic science works and it is never how it worked, but basic science is absolutely crucial for advancing tech. If you can convince shareholders that it is e.g. worth investigating unusual crystal structures with no intended product in mind then people will gladly share some grants with you to edit so you can work some of that magic. It's just not feasible, no company would pay for that, but sometimes it leads to important discoveries that change the game.

And I only mentioned endowments because the parent of my comment did, but again, the important point is that endowments are not intended to entirely fund the research machine, and never will.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#57

Post by tracker1 »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #43
tracker1 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of privileges/rights are limited to citizens in the US in different ways. Why would any government welcome a subversive, foreign influence? Should it be any surprise that the result is similar to what happens when a spy is caught?

The first amendment is NOT limited to citizens in the US. It just isn't. Why would it be? Free speech, free press, and freedom of religion applies to everybody.

The Visa application, process and requirements themselves limit activities to persons in the US on a Visa. In particular, it limits subversive activities as well as speaking and/or acting out against US policies.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#58

Post by tracker1 »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #42
tracker1 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I may get some flack for this. But IMO, you shouldn't make waves when you are a VISA guest in another country. It's just a bad idea all around. There's every reason to actively avoid getting politically involved. While I realize that US higher education is particularly motivated towards activism, protests and the like. Historically accepting even foreign nationals in such activity. It's still just a bad idea f…

What the heck? In the US, free speech is guaranteed in the constitution. Of course people can make waves! The idea that people should just go along with things and not make their voices heard is completely unamerican.

It is expressly limited by the Visa application, process and requirements that are agreed to as part of obtaining a Visa to enter the US.

Re: New treatment eliminates bladder cancer in 82% of patients

#60

Post by beowulfey »

tracker1 wrote: post #33
beowulfey wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Why would companies pay for basic research? They used to get that research for free. 2) Very few schools have endowments that are large enough to support current faculty research costs; even Harvard can only support all research off their endowment for about a year. 3) Endowments are now taxed, so they will have even less available for research.

1) because they're the ones who most benefit from it. Because they still need the research itself, even if someone else isn't paying for it. 2) Harvard has a $54 billion endowment and spends $6.4 billion a year, that doesn't include tuition and fees, that's just what they have in the bank. 3) Actually spending the money is tax deductible and better for the economy.

Endowment funds are not a checking account, they are not just cash on hand for universities to spend as they please. They could certainly liquidate, but then each year their disbursement would get lower. There is no situation where they could continue operating as they do now.

See my other comment on the likelihood that any corporation would want to pay for basic science. When would any company choose to fund something that would not guarantee a return on investment? It goes against the nature of the goals of a corporation. I would love to know of for-profit examples of this. I'm sure there are a few, but I doubt there are many.

Post reply on HN