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

New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 135 posts

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#61

Post by martincmartin »

marxidad wrote: post #55
latj wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We generally arent trying to cure diseases. I mean, individual researchers want to find cures (e.g. the dedicated clinician who went to med school because her mother had breast cancer, the passionate hacker who eschewed private buses and free lunches at some startup to work at a research institute) Generally though, the pressure of the overall system is to make as much money as possible. If you cure someone's disease…

Does anyone actually make the conscious decision to avoid curing diseases because of its limited profitability?

Sure, there are all sorts of rare diseases that could be cured, but there's no money to do the research. People have fundraisers to try to make it profitable, e.g. [1]

[1] http://www.finleyfighters.com/

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#63

Post by huherto »

marxidad wrote: post #55
latj wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We generally arent trying to cure diseases. I mean, individual researchers want to find cures (e.g. the dedicated clinician who went to med school because her mother had breast cancer, the passionate hacker who eschewed private buses and free lunches at some startup to work at a research institute) Generally though, the pressure of the overall system is to make as much money as possible. If you cure someone's disease…

Does anyone actually make the conscious decision to avoid curing diseases because of its limited profitability?

Not a conspiracy. It is just a matter of where the market incentives are.

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#64

Post by huherto »

kin wrote: post #50
DicksenZuider wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exterminating all mosquitoes could doom the animals that eat them. Birds, insects, spiders, salamanders, lizards and frogs could lose their primary food source. Wiping out a large part of the ecology could be a disaster.

Although I remember reading somewhere that mosquitos have a negative footprint on ecology. There's definitely a ton of research at the moment on mosquito control. There was another article on HN a few years ago on a device that tracks and kills mosquitos w/ tiny lasers that can't harm humans. Apologize for lack of source, I'll try and dig them up. EDIT: found it! wasn't too hard to find haha. And it seems other repli…

Sadly the mosquito laser is not happening yet.

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#66

Post by Ericson2314 »

etendue wrote: post #22
ChuckMcM wrote: post #9

Ok, off tangent a bit, but if you randomly sample mosquitoes, those mosquitos have limited flight range, and you find things about the blood meals they have eaten. Are you at risk of invading the privacy of people who live near the mosquitoes?

Very interesting question. What if, by chance, you tested that blood and found it positive for HIV? What are your ethical obligations viz. notification as one example? (Mosquitos can't transmit HIV, but they can capture the virus while feeding)

> Mosquitos can't transmit HIV

Never thought of that. Thank goodness!

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#67

Post by djsumdog »

onewaystreet wrote: post #54
otto_ortega wrote: post #37

Why if instead of spending money researching the diseases that mosquitos could transmit to humans on the future we spend all that money into figuring out a way to exterminate all mosquitos from the surface of earth once and for all? As someone who lives on a tropical country and had have both Dengue and Chikungunya I can attest mosquitos are pure evil, and there are several researchs suggesting they serve no purpose…

The how already exists (genetic engineering) but it will probably never be done due to political reasons.

This has been commented on before here and elsewhere: the elimination of certain species of mosquitoes that seem to serve no ecological purpose other than spreading disease.

There may be political motivations/economic (Malarial drugs would plummet for example), but I think it goes further than just that.

We don't think there are any ecological purposes .. but spreading disease is a purpose. Animals that have been kept in check may explode. Human populations are already exploding.

Parts of this planet are in bad shape simply due to species introduction (Australian Camels is a good example). Other species have been introduced to solve the initial problem, only to create more problems.

I would like to see an end to these annoying insects too, but there could be unintended consequences. Those are legitimate concerns.

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#68

Post by shoyer »

latj wrote: post #46
otto_ortega wrote: post #37

Why if instead of spending money researching the diseases that mosquitos could transmit to humans on the future we spend all that money into figuring out a way to exterminate all mosquitos from the surface of earth once and for all? As someone who lives on a tropical country and had have both Dengue and Chikungunya I can attest mosquitos are pure evil, and there are several researchs suggesting they serve no purpose…

We generally arent trying to cure diseases. I mean, individual researchers want to find cures (e.g. the dedicated clinician who went to med school because her mother had breast cancer, the passionate hacker who eschewed private buses and free lunches at some startup to work at a research institute) Generally though, the pressure of the overall system is to make as much money as possible. If you cure someone's disease…

It is common mistaken belief that drug companies don't have an incentive to find cures.

Cures are actually tremendously profitable. You can charge more money for a cure than drugs for a lifetime of symptom management, because cures result in better outcomes and significant cost savings for the entire healthcare system.

The recent development of cures for Hepatitis C is a perfect case in point. Gilead is pulling in $10B+/year in revenue from these drugs. There has been plenty of outrage about how much Sovaldi costs, but it's still way cheaper than a liver transplant.

That said, you're probably right that it would be difficult to profit directly off of exterminating mosquitoes. That's exactly that sort of research that governments should (and do) fund (search for "gene drives").

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#69

Post by kafkaesq »

otto_ortega wrote: post #37

Why if instead of spending money researching the diseases that mosquitos could transmit to humans on the future we spend all that money into figuring out a way to exterminate all mosquitos from the surface of earth once and for all? As someone who lives on a tropical country and had have both Dengue and Chikungunya I can attest mosquitos are pure evil, and there are several researchs suggesting they serve no purpose…

Why if instead of spending money researching the diseases that mosquitos could transmit to humans on the future we spend all that money into figuring out a way to exterminate all mosquitos from the surface of earth once and for all?

As if that were somehow... easier, or even more tractable?

They're arguably (much) better optimized for long-term survival than we are, you know.

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#70

Post by Houshalter »

martincmartin wrote: post #61
marxidad wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone actually make the conscious decision to avoid curing diseases because of its limited profitability?

Sure, there are all sorts of rare diseases that could be cured, but there's no money to do the research. People have fundraisers to try to make it profitable, e.g. [1] [1] http://www.finleyfighters.com/

Well that's because the diseases are rare. Regardless of profit, it makes no sense to work on a drug that will save 20 lives, when you could work on one that saves 200 lives.

Another part of the problem is that the cost of getting drugs approved is ridiculously high.

Post reply on HN