3 ms·
I'm not sure they exist yet; we're still at the stage where we are trying to appreciate the complexity of the systems we are studying. The first step is to cata
by astazangasta 11y ago
I'm not sure they exist yet; we're still at the stage where we are trying to appreciate the complexity of the systems we are studying. The first step is to catalog. For example we've only recently begun to appreciate the extent of genetic heterogeneity in cancers (and the therapeutic significance of this variation). Now that we have this sense people are beginning to think about new experimental methods for collecting this kind of information; we are still a few years (maybe a decade) out from good models of how to analyze it.
- agumonkey 11y agoI can't naively hope that very high performance (exascale) computing helps finding the right theories here. But I do hope that people don't waste time digging in the wrong direction. Facing complexity is better than not being aware of it. ps: I hope though, in the case of non mental disorders, that finer and cheaper technology allow for preemptive discovery, continuous monitoring and non invasive therapies.
- forgotpwagain 11y agoComputing will help. But we also need new fundamental technologies that get us information that old methods from molecular biology miss. DNA sequencing isn't everything--we need to be able to look at ALL of the biomolecules within an organism and their dynamics.
- agumonkey 11y agoI know. I was talking to someone in the genetic field and he agreed that the legacy view on genetics is out of touch. So far mainstream media still report this kind of sequencing wows but I hope research is aiming at a deeper yet leaner model.