4 ms·

> You're never sure if it's going to work in the laboratory! Research is mostly "try something new, then try another new thing when that fails." It's "wasteful"

by srunni 11y ago

> You're never sure if it's going to work in the laboratory! Research is mostly "try something new, then try another new thing when that fails." It's "wasteful" because it's guided trial and error, and you don't have full totalitarian control over any of the variables. If you think you are investing in a new biotech company (or old, really) that has escaped this paradigm, I have a series of pyramids to sell you. This is an application of Thiel's philosophy of making contrarian bets. From his perspective, if you weren't incredulous about Stemcentrx in the way you are, then he would have made the mistake of investing in something incremental. Whether his contrarian bet turns out to be correct is something that remains to be seen. > Nature isn't random! Nature is complex, cryptic, self-referential, and chaotic, but it's deterministic at the level of biology. I don't think this is exactly true. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_noise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_noise There are certainly many seemingly random aspects of biology that are actually just a lack of understanding at the moment, but that doesn't mean there is no fundamentally random behavior in biological systems.

toufka 11y ago
The concept you're looking for is Stocastic [1]. The distinction between being 'stocastic' and 'random' is one of 'unpredictable & determined' vs ' unpredictable & undetermined'. Cell biology deals with (and utilizes) a few stocastic processes, but that doesn't make those processes random. An interesting test to differentiate the two (at least in biology) is what happens when you run the simulation backwards - if the occurrence of an event is still unpredictable in reverse, then it's 'random', if every causal incident can be traced, it would generally be considered stochastic. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic (edit to fix wording)
- srunni 11y ago
  > The distinction between being 'stocastic' and 'random' is one of 'predictability & determined' vs 'undetermined'. The first sentence on the page you linked to suggests otherwise: > The term stochastic occurs...to describe events or systems that are unpredictable
  - toufka 11y ago
    Sorry, that was not a well-written wording. The intention was to demonstrate the concept of 'predictability' not whether it was actually predictable. Edited and fixed now.
    - srunni 11y ago
      > The distinction between being 'stocastic' and 'random' is one of 'unpredictable & determined' vs ' unpredictable & undetermined' Also from that page you linked: > a purely stochastic system is one whose state is randomly determined...it can be classified as non-deterministic (i.e., "random") Also: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/114373/whats-the-difference-between-stochastic-and-random http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/114373/whats-the-dif... > A variable is 'random'. A process is 'stochastic'. Apart from this difference the two words are synonyms
      - toufka 11y ago
        Huh. It seems different scientific fields use the word 'stochastic' in very different ways. The commenter, 'bgins' makes the point, "Random has many connotations (like entropy), not at all equivalent, and is a more generic term usable outside mathematics. Stochastic means nondeterministic or unpredictable. Random generally means unrecognizable, not adhering to a pattern. A random variable is also called a stochastic variable." And user, 'Einnocent,' "Likewise, I've noticed that network theory tends to refer to traffic as being stochastic. Such traffic, from the point of view of a router, would be considered random, but of course each packet was deterministically produced." In the biochemical field (of which I'm familiar, though ignorant of the others), I doubt anyone would say that gene expression is 'random', rather it is 'stochastic', and their intention in choosing those words distinctly would indicate that there are not just probabilistic, but physical limits to the expression of a gene that constrain its probability space. And further, there are generally deterministic (if unpredictable (though not entirely independent) from to state) mechanisms which ultimately lead to gene expression. Were I to say that the expression of gene A is 'random,' then it would seem to imply that there is some minute chance that the result is a billion copies of the gene, when physically, it might be impossible for the cell to exist with that many proteins in it - or that the state of gene expression at time t0 is entirely independent of expression at time t1, which is also untrue. Both of these interpretations of biological processes are misleading and wrong, though they are what is conjured when it is said that, "gene expression is random." All the while, the number of copies is actually dependent on knowable, measurable, if highly-noisy processes - what I've know to be termed 'stochastic'.
cryoshon 11y ago
If Thiel were being contrarian, he's invest in a biotech company that WAS merely trying to iterate incrementally-- it will be very hard for him to find such a company that actually needs funding, as only big pharma is interested in that kind of iteration. Biotech startups are almost exclusively (to my knowledge, exclusively) long shots with potential large upswings. Nobody is working on incremental improvements. Emphasizing a company that claims it won't have any failures or waste is probably indicative of ignorance rather than some grand enlightened-investment stratagem.
- srunni 11y ago
  > Biotech startups are almost exclusively (to my knowledge, exclusively) long shots with potential large upswings. And it's these sorts of long shots that he wants to avoid. He thinks that Stemcentrx has more certainty in its outcome than other biotechs, despite also having a potentially large upswing. Like you, I was not particularly impressed by Stemcentrx from the information in the article. But neither of us have any other visibility into what they're actually doing. Perhaps it will end up as another Halcyon Molecular, or perhaps it will live up to its hype - only time will tell. Given that Thiel has the money (and hopefully the humility) to hire experts who know far more about this topic than him (or either of us, for that matter), I hope that things work out - patients and investors alike will benefit.

by srunni 11y ago

toufka 11y ago

The concept you're looking for is Stocastic [1]. The distinction between being 'stocastic' and 'random' is one of 'unpredictable & determined' vs ' unpredictable & undetermined'. Cell biology deals with (and utilizes) a few stocastic processes, but that doesn't make those processes random. An interesting test to differentiate the two (at least in biology) is what happens when you run the simulation backwards - if the occurrence of an event is still unpredictable in reverse, then it's 'random', if every causal incident can be traced, it would generally be considered stochastic. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic (edit to fix wording)

srunni 11y ago
> The distinction between being 'stocastic' and 'random' is one of 'predictability & determined' vs 'undetermined'. The first sentence on the page you linked to suggests otherwise: > The term stochastic occurs...to describe events or systems that are unpredictable
- toufka 11y ago
  Sorry, that was not a well-written wording. The intention was to demonstrate the concept of 'predictability' not whether it was actually predictable. Edited and fixed now.
  - srunni 11y ago
    > The distinction between being 'stocastic' and 'random' is one of 'unpredictable & determined' vs ' unpredictable & undetermined' Also from that page you linked: > a purely stochastic system is one whose state is randomly determined...it can be classified as non-deterministic (i.e., "random") Also: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/114373/whats-the-difference-between-stochastic-and-random http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/114373/whats-the-dif... > A variable is 'random'. A process is 'stochastic'. Apart from this difference the two words are synonyms
    - toufka 11y ago
      Huh. It seems different scientific fields use the word 'stochastic' in very different ways. The commenter, 'bgins' makes the point, "Random has many connotations (like entropy), not at all equivalent, and is a more generic term usable outside mathematics. Stochastic means nondeterministic or unpredictable. Random generally means unrecognizable, not adhering to a pattern. A random variable is also called a stochastic variable." And user, 'Einnocent,' "Likewise, I've noticed that network theory tends to refer to traffic as being stochastic. Such traffic, from the point of view of a router, would be considered random, but of course each packet was deterministically produced." In the biochemical field (of which I'm familiar, though ignorant of the others), I doubt anyone would say that gene expression is 'random', rather it is 'stochastic', and their intention in choosing those words distinctly would indicate that there are not just probabilistic, but physical limits to the expression of a gene that constrain its probability space. And further, there are generally deterministic (if unpredictable (though not entirely independent) from to state) mechanisms which ultimately lead to gene expression. Were I to say that the expression of gene A is 'random,' then it would seem to imply that there is some minute chance that the result is a billion copies of the gene, when physically, it might be impossible for the cell to exist with that many proteins in it - or that the state of gene expression at time t0 is entirely independent of expression at time t1, which is also untrue. Both of these interpretations of biological processes are misleading and wrong, though they are what is conjured when it is said that, "gene expression is random." All the while, the number of copies is actually dependent on knowable, measurable, if highly-noisy processes - what I've know to be termed 'stochastic'.

cryoshon 11y ago

If Thiel were being contrarian, he's invest in a biotech company that WAS merely trying to iterate incrementally-- it will be very hard for him to find such a company that actually needs funding, as only big pharma is interested in that kind of iteration. Biotech startups are almost exclusively (to my knowledge, exclusively) long shots with potential large upswings. Nobody is working on incremental improvements. Emphasizing a company that claims it won't have any failures or waste is probably indicative of ignorance rather than some grand enlightened-investment stratagem.

srunni 11y ago
> Biotech startups are almost exclusively (to my knowledge, exclusively) long shots with potential large upswings. And it's these sorts of long shots that he wants to avoid. He thinks that Stemcentrx has more certainty in its outcome than other biotechs, despite also having a potentially large upswing. Like you, I was not particularly impressed by Stemcentrx from the information in the article. But neither of us have any other visibility into what they're actually doing. Perhaps it will end up as another Halcyon Molecular, or perhaps it will live up to its hype - only time will tell. Given that Thiel has the money (and hopefully the humility) to hire experts who know far more about this topic than him (or either of us, for that matter), I hope that things work out - patients and investors alike will benefit.