15 ms·

Since I lost password to above account, I am using a new account to reply. First if you think my reply which merely pointed out that your remarks were meaningl

Since I lost password to above account, I am using a new account to reply. First if you think my reply which merely pointed out that your remarks were meaningless or that you were unqualified (as you yourself pointed out) was "Abusive". You ought to re-read the article which is an open political attack, along with a photoshopped image mocking a researcher. """ So when you say it would be major progress if this discovery led to the development of a drug that helped 20% of sufferers, I say sure, but wouldn't it be more revolutionary if we could understand precisely why these genetic predispositions express in some people and not in others, then use this knowledge to develop techniques to resolve or prevent the illness in 100% of people? """ The issue with such statements/questions E.g. "But wouldn't it be great if we could prevent cancer instead of curing it?" or "But it will be more awesome if achieve true AI instead of just some game benchmark" or "Wouldn't it be great if achieved faster than light space travel". Is that at best they are meaningless from point of view of scientific inquiry. They offer no benchmark, or even a reasonable plan of action. At worst they are often used to mislead from real scientific achievements. Such statements are feel good equivalent of "World Peace!" or "End Hunger!" or "All you need is loveee!". While most users on this site would be able to quickly figure out the futility of "World Peace now" they don't recognize it when the similar statements are formulated in medical / healthcare domain. To conclude this, what the researchers found regarding schizophrenia is awesome, they published in Nature, and as other comment points out most of the scientific community thinks its amazing if not revolutionary. There is no reason to dismiss it by quoting a politically motivated attack by some blogger and citing impossible to achieve goals without any feasible roadmap.

tomhoward 11y ago
A few comments to round out the discussion... - The main reason I engage in discussions like this is to test how much of a "clue" I in fact have about these topics, and identify what gaps in my knowledge need to be filled. This one has been as valuable as any in that regard. (FWIW I found Chris Patil's response to the post most insightful, as well as researcher Kevin Mitchell's followup comment.) - It's untrue, your implication that pointing out the importance of the non-genetic component in the development of illness is a pointless diversion. There are compelling hypotheses around this (some going back decades) and promising studies in this area [1]. Yet they are often marginalised or contemptuously dismissed by the segment of the scientific community that remains fixated on genetic determinism (e.g., Richard Dawkins' recent public attacks on epigenetics - based not on any evidence but on his own ideology and ego). The point is that there could be much more progress in resolving these illnesses if researchers/institutions were less focused on fanning their own egos with over-the-top claims, less constrained by the existing commercial model for medicine (we can use this to make new drugs!), and more open to other researchers' insights and discoveries that could help to complete the whole picture. - It's no big deal to me as I can handle it, but you were abusive in a way that is outside HN guidelines. Your perception of the tone of the original article doesn't change that. When I couched my comments with "I'm no expert", as a point of modesty and a disclaimer, that didn't warrant such a confrontational assertion as "You have zero clue regarding what you are talking about", followed up with a string of accusations that seem to be grounded in your own grievances with other people who engage in this topic, but were not evident in anything I wrote myself. Like I said, I can handle it, but if you make a habit of that style of commenting, you may attract the attention of the mods and other participants who value HN as a place where people treat each other with politeness and respect (HN is very deliberately not Reddit). - HN has a password recovery feature FYI. And you can email the mods at hn@ycombinator.com for help with this or any other aspect of the site. Thanks for the discussion. [1] Prominent researchers and advocates in this area include Harvard medical professor Rudy Tanzi, former Stanford researcher Bruce Lipton, and general physician Lissa Rankin. I comfortably concede they all suffer the propensity to align themselves too much with the new age woo industry - though that is partly due to their banishment from the scientific mainstream for having non-conformist ideas that question genetic determinism (Lipton in particular). FYI My personal quest is to gather hard data as I apply their hypotheses in an attempt to completely cure my own illnesses, then work with professional researchers to investigate these hypotheses more widely.

tomhoward 11y ago

A few comments to round out the discussion... - The main reason I engage in discussions like this is to test how much of a "clue" I in fact have about these topics, and identify what gaps in my knowledge need to be filled. This one has been as valuable as any in that regard. (FWIW I found Chris Patil's response to the post most insightful, as well as researcher Kevin Mitchell's followup comment.) - It's untrue, your implication that pointing out the importance of the non-genetic component in the development of illness is a pointless diversion. There are compelling hypotheses around this (some going back decades) and promising studies in this area [1]. Yet they are often marginalised or contemptuously dismissed by the segment of the scientific community that remains fixated on genetic determinism (e.g., Richard Dawkins' recent public attacks on epigenetics - based not on any evidence but on his own ideology and ego). The point is that there could be much more progress in resolving these illnesses if researchers/institutions were less focused on fanning their own egos with over-the-top claims, less constrained by the existing commercial model for medicine (we can use this to make new drugs!), and more open to other researchers' insights and discoveries that could help to complete the whole picture. - It's no big deal to me as I can handle it, but you were abusive in a way that is outside HN guidelines. Your perception of the tone of the original article doesn't change that. When I couched my comments with "I'm no expert", as a point of modesty and a disclaimer, that didn't warrant such a confrontational assertion as "You have zero clue regarding what you are talking about", followed up with a string of accusations that seem to be grounded in your own grievances with other people who engage in this topic, but were not evident in anything I wrote myself. Like I said, I can handle it, but if you make a habit of that style of commenting, you may attract the attention of the mods and other participants who value HN as a place where people treat each other with politeness and respect (HN is very deliberately not Reddit). - HN has a password recovery feature FYI. And you can email the mods at hn@ycombinator.com for help with this or any other aspect of the site. Thanks for the discussion. [1] Prominent researchers and advocates in this area include Harvard medical professor Rudy Tanzi, former Stanford researcher Bruce Lipton, and general physician Lissa Rankin. I comfortably concede they all suffer the propensity to align themselves too much with the new age woo industry - though that is partly due to their banishment from the scientific mainstream for having non-conformist ideas that question genetic determinism (Lipton in particular). FYI My personal quest is to gather hard data as I apply their hypotheses in an attempt to completely cure my own illnesses, then work with professional researchers to investigate these hypotheses more widely.