4 ms·
I have read a couple of similar stories. While there may be a legit case for funding this work (I don't know the details) one should be aware of one thing: Ther
by hannob 10y ago
I have read a couple of similar stories. While there may be a legit case for funding this work (I don't know the details) one should be aware of one thing: There are a lot of promising preclinical results, and the vast majority never turns into any medical treatment. I think the article completely fails to reflect that and gives the impression that turning this research into a treatment is just a matter of proper funding.
As far as I understand there currently only exist a few animal lab studies that indicate this treatment works. Especially in these preclinical settings many studies turn out to be not reproducible. But even if they are, there's a very long way to a treatment in humans.
- api 10y ago> There are a lot of promising preclinical results, and the vast majority never turns into any medical treatment. There are a lot of promising startups and the vast majority fail. Science needs to take a lot more risks, not less, and be willing to fail. If science is now unwilling to take risks or fail, science is over as anything other than a cargo cult built around the science of previous generations.
- pjc50 10y agoGreat! Who's going to pay for those risks to be taken?
- Beltiras 10y agoAnyone, everyone. Crowdfunding science should be done more.
- NikolaeVarius 10y agoSo science will become "throw money at the people who can win a social media popularity contest". How is that any better than what we have now? Everything about it seems worse.
- Beltiras 10y agoI'm not saying it's a perfect solution. It's better than what we have today and that is all we really can ask for at any given time.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoI work in academia. Funding is always scarce. It does not come out of the sky. Example: If the grant says that all proposal text must be in 11 point Times New Roman font, and you do 12 point Times New Roman, in the trash you go. People giving vast sums of money want to make sure every penny is carefully spent. As for crowdsourcing research, well, go for it. It's just that we already have a method for this. It's called "taxes." Edit: inevitable tax argument deflection: the vast majority of the US federal budget is, as Thomas L Friedman put it, "an insurance company with a military." Research as a portion is teensy-tiny. Our society could easily fund federal research - "we" just choose not to.
- Beltiras 10y agoI should have been more explicit. When I say "everyone" I mean collectively through taxes. I think both methods have merit.
- mordymoop 10y agoThis is probably fine as long as there is a greater-than-zero correlation between actual quality and ability to win the popularity contest.
- api 10y agoIt doesn't seem much worse than "throw money at people who can navigate a byzantine bureaucracy." It may be better since winning a social media contest requires creative thinking.
- Beltiras 10y agoBoth models require creative thinking, if you approach the bureaucracy in a certain way. I've taken part in applying for grants, not in the US. I'm becoming good enough at it that companies are contracting me to write the report part. Properly constructing the pitch is an artform.
- Semiapies 10y agoThat's pretty standard, really. Someone announces a research finding, and science journalists report it's gonna be a cure Real Soon Now. Beyond just the reproducibility crisis meaning it's got a serious possibility of being a bullshit result to begin with, actually trying to come up with a treatment or drug will not only take years of work, but a gamble for that particular work to actually pan out. Then, once something does pan out, you have to get it through the regulatory process.