6 ms·

A Few Billionaires Are Turning Medical Philanthropy on Its Head

84 points by seycombi 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jokoon 10y ago
I guess after Trump's election, people who have money will try to stand out and show that capitalism is not always inhumane. Either that or they will realize that wealth is not just a reward of power, it's also a responsibility to their country and their citizens. I wish the wealthy would see their achievement as a success for their nation and employees, not for their own self. The whole anti government anti collectivism anti taxes and "I did it myself" is really a plague. There are many example of very wealthy individuals of the 19th and 20th century who gave a lot and it still lives to that day.
- melling 10y ago
  This article has nothing to do with the election, or politics. Hacking research, and medical research in particular, is beneficial to everyone. It would be helpful to figure out a way for more people to contribute rather than throwing out your political feelings.
  - japhyr 10y ago
    The rise of anti-intellectual politicians and policies makes politics quite relevant to discussions like these. Ignoring the political impact on positive endeavors is wishful thinking.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > capitalism is not always inhumane Though they don't use the terminology, most people have a beef with modern corporatism more than capitalism itself. Things like individual property rights and fairly enforced contract law are certainly humane.
based2 10y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/5gerym/a_few_billionaires_are_turning_medical/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/5gerym/a_few_bi...
- funnyfacts365 10y ago
  Why?
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
> What’s more, marketable discoveries will be group affairs, with collaborative licensing deals -- no matter who led the research. I've been talking to a colleague this week, who casually observed to me that I will be dinged in my annual reviews if I'm not perceived to be "a team player". People don't understand that only the most trivial jobs are done "collaboratively". When you're digging a ditch, you need a team. When you're making an intellectual effort, you need to encourage individual effort or you'll just get a herd of researchers rehashing known results. That's the major problem with "team science", and Parker is doubling down on this.
- kiba 10y ago
  We need more replication and reproducability than new theorizing. There's no point in doing that if your science is built on very shaky foundations.
- nerdponx 10y ago
  It's both. You need intense individual focus, but you also need to get those individuals in a room together so they can bounce ideas off each other, synchronize their work, and hash out issues they weren't able to solve on their own.
  - preordained 10y ago
    It's definitely both. Via personally experience, a bunch of people in a room hashing out ideas real time--the more difficult the problem, the more this has to be counter-balanced by intense personal study to mature a concept enough to bring it to the group.
- Retric 10y ago
  You have that backwards. Only the most trivial research is done by a single person. Sure, at an individual level competence is important, but having 50 people all doing their own things is not useful.
- pipio21 10y ago
  On the contrary, only trivial jobs could be done by individuals. A single person could do very little alone against a really hard problem. Teams really help immensely. The original definition of corporation was "a group of people that joins together to do something", like making a bridge, or sailing half of the world when those activities were risky, dangerous and hard. There was a time in which sailing meant 2 of each 3 ships were sink by storms, or pirates. Romans will kill you if the bridge you build was weak. But the team members must be great individually and complement each other. For example the group that invented the transistor, aerospacial rockets or the integrated circuit, or the microprocessor were a heck of a team. In the US individualism means the individual mindset is favored over anything else. In the rest of the world it is the other way. For example in Japan going alone is suicidal, "The nail that sticks out shall be hammered down". I would say the best system is some of both systems. When Steve Jobs was ousted of Apple his number one priority with Next was having success so he could maintain the best people of his team. And it was not a secret, he will tell you.
andrewfromx 10y ago
this is great. rather than trying to setup a charity or give money away, they just run the standard ruthless capitalism play and make a business deal. They just purposely make a very bad deal for themselves in order to give the money away.
- adolph 10y ago
  Which approach has a tax advantage?
kaonashi 10y ago
This seems incredibly inefficient. Medical research should not be driven this much by people who got lucky in unrelated fields.
- afsina 10y ago
  They are not on the driver seat. They fund and observe. This system is better than state or academia.
- harryjo 10y ago
  OK, who should it be driven by then? A monarch? Democratic vote? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage
- forgotpwagain 10y ago
  It has the potential to be inefficient if they choose the wrong group of scientific advisors. But, for most of these initiatives, they're very careful to choose smart people to actually lead the details of the project and figure out how to best distribute the money. Sometimes, we're actually within striking zone of these targeted diseases and funding more translational research is good. Other times, we still don't understand the underlying diseases well enough, and so we still need to do an enormous amount of basic science before trying to cure these diseases in the clinic. A team of good scientific advisors who are at the cutting edge of their respective fields can provide the insight and decision-making that this needs, to extract the maximum value from the money provided.
tcj_phx 10y ago
Medical science will make great progress when it's able to to challenge some of its basic assumptions. No single person did more damage to the progress of Medical Science than Ancel Keys [1]. Dr. Keys hypothesized that heart disease was caused by the consumption of saturated fats, and recommended that people avoid the consumption of animal fat, in favor of deodorized polyunsaturated vegetable oil. We now know that partially-hydrogenated oils (such as were used in Crisco, before it was reformulated in the early 2000's) are the real villains. But the grocery store shelves are still lined with 'healthy' Safflower, Soybean, Corn, and Cottonseed oils. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys#Seven_Countries_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys#Seven_Countries_Stu... The drug industry has done a lot of damage too. For example, Doctors have spent decades suppressing cholesterol levels, instead of trying to figure out the meaning of high cholesterol levels. Dissidents against the cholesterol hypothesis have been gaining traction in recent years, even among the professional class. In Anatomy of an Epidemic, [2] Robert Whitaker covers how the pharmaceutical industry conquered the psychiatric profession in the 1980's. [2] http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Anatomy%20of%20an%20Epidemic.html http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Anatomy%20of%20...
- misterhtmlcss 10y ago
  NASA got the guys home safe from Apollo 11 because brilliant and I mean brilliant minds worked together. My uncle was one of them and he's the craziest, yet most intelligent person I've ever known. Teamwork is different than collaboration. In teamwork intellectual pursuits can achieve great success, but collaboration needs to be tempered, because many times collaboration means just talking and sharing with weaker members, but teamwork is an ability to effectively communicate, form and dissolve efficiently collaborative groups to optimize for results... That's how I've always separated the two words, might not be for everyone that definition. Also the other great provider of innovation is pressure towards a definable goal, which most organizations lack looking at them as an external, which doesn't mean I'm accurate, but does cause me to question whether this could be an issue that'll need to be addressed. The singular approach had this goal oriented approach build in by its very nature and the collaboration leads to security and it can be difficult to inspire the same degree of engenuity. Wrote from my mobile, so please consider that before you play wack a mole with my comment.
EGreg 10y ago
Yes! Collaboration may lead even to open source drugs: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=93 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=93
abrax3141 10y ago
This is all confusion. Science is a "Bayesian Community" (to coin a phrase). It collaborates already, as needed, albeit inefficiently. One could improve the collaborative process, but to strong arm it is just ignorance of everything about science. This is just rich children throwing their money around.

84 points by seycombi 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

I guess after Trump's election, people who have money will try to stand out and show that capitalism is not always inhumane. Either that or they will realize that wealth is not just a reward of power, it's also a responsibility to their country and their citizens. I wish the wealthy would see their achievement as a success for their nation and employees, not for their own self. The whole anti government anti collectivism anti taxes and "I did it myself" is really a plague. There are many example of very wealthy individuals of the 19th and 20th century who gave a lot and it still lives to that day.

melling 10y ago
This article has nothing to do with the election, or politics. Hacking research, and medical research in particular, is beneficial to everyone. It would be helpful to figure out a way for more people to contribute rather than throwing out your political feelings.
- japhyr 10y ago
  The rise of anti-intellectual politicians and policies makes politics quite relevant to discussions like these. Ignoring the political impact on positive endeavors is wishful thinking.
humanrebar 10y ago
> capitalism is not always inhumane Though they don't use the terminology, most people have a beef with modern corporatism more than capitalism itself. Things like individual property rights and fairly enforced contract law are certainly humane.

based2 10y ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/5gerym/a_few_billionaires_are_turning_medical/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/5gerym/a_few_bi...

funnyfacts365 10y ago
Why?

KKKKkkkk1 10y ago

> What’s more, marketable discoveries will be group affairs, with collaborative licensing deals -- no matter who led the research. I've been talking to a colleague this week, who casually observed to me that I will be dinged in my annual reviews if I'm not perceived to be "a team player". People don't understand that only the most trivial jobs are done "collaboratively". When you're digging a ditch, you need a team. When you're making an intellectual effort, you need to encourage individual effort or you'll just get a herd of researchers rehashing known results. That's the major problem with "team science", and Parker is doubling down on this.

kiba 10y ago
We need more replication and reproducability than new theorizing. There's no point in doing that if your science is built on very shaky foundations.
nerdponx 10y ago
It's both. You need intense individual focus, but you also need to get those individuals in a room together so they can bounce ideas off each other, synchronize their work, and hash out issues they weren't able to solve on their own.
- preordained 10y ago
  It's definitely both. Via personally experience, a bunch of people in a room hashing out ideas real time--the more difficult the problem, the more this has to be counter-balanced by intense personal study to mature a concept enough to bring it to the group.
Retric 10y ago
You have that backwards. Only the most trivial research is done by a single person. Sure, at an individual level competence is important, but having 50 people all doing their own things is not useful.
pipio21 10y ago
On the contrary, only trivial jobs could be done by individuals. A single person could do very little alone against a really hard problem. Teams really help immensely. The original definition of corporation was "a group of people that joins together to do something", like making a bridge, or sailing half of the world when those activities were risky, dangerous and hard. There was a time in which sailing meant 2 of each 3 ships were sink by storms, or pirates. Romans will kill you if the bridge you build was weak. But the team members must be great individually and complement each other. For example the group that invented the transistor, aerospacial rockets or the integrated circuit, or the microprocessor were a heck of a team. In the US individualism means the individual mindset is favored over anything else. In the rest of the world it is the other way. For example in Japan going alone is suicidal, "The nail that sticks out shall be hammered down". I would say the best system is some of both systems. When Steve Jobs was ousted of Apple his number one priority with Next was having success so he could maintain the best people of his team. And it was not a secret, he will tell you.

andrewfromx 10y ago

this is great. rather than trying to setup a charity or give money away, they just run the standard ruthless capitalism play and make a business deal. They just purposely make a very bad deal for themselves in order to give the money away.

adolph 10y ago
Which approach has a tax advantage?

kaonashi 10y ago

This seems incredibly inefficient. Medical research should not be driven this much by people who got lucky in unrelated fields.

afsina 10y ago
They are not on the driver seat. They fund and observe. This system is better than state or academia.
harryjo 10y ago
OK, who should it be driven by then? A monarch? Democratic vote? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage
forgotpwagain 10y ago
It has the potential to be inefficient if they choose the wrong group of scientific advisors. But, for most of these initiatives, they're very careful to choose smart people to actually lead the details of the project and figure out how to best distribute the money. Sometimes, we're actually within striking zone of these targeted diseases and funding more translational research is good. Other times, we still don't understand the underlying diseases well enough, and so we still need to do an enormous amount of basic science before trying to cure these diseases in the clinic. A team of good scientific advisors who are at the cutting edge of their respective fields can provide the insight and decision-making that this needs, to extract the maximum value from the money provided.

tcj_phx 10y ago

Medical science will make great progress when it's able to to challenge some of its basic assumptions. No single person did more damage to the progress of Medical Science than Ancel Keys [1]. Dr. Keys hypothesized that heart disease was caused by the consumption of saturated fats, and recommended that people avoid the consumption of animal fat, in favor of deodorized polyunsaturated vegetable oil. We now know that partially-hydrogenated oils (such as were used in Crisco, before it was reformulated in the early 2000's) are the real villains. But the grocery store shelves are still lined with 'healthy' Safflower, Soybean, Corn, and Cottonseed oils. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys#Seven_Countries_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys#Seven_Countries_Stu... The drug industry has done a lot of damage too. For example, Doctors have spent decades suppressing cholesterol levels, instead of trying to figure out the meaning of high cholesterol levels. Dissidents against the cholesterol hypothesis have been gaining traction in recent years, even among the professional class. In Anatomy of an Epidemic, [2] Robert Whitaker covers how the pharmaceutical industry conquered the psychiatric profession in the 1980's. [2] http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Anatomy%20of%20an%20Epidemic.html http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Anatomy%20of%20...

misterhtmlcss 10y ago
NASA got the guys home safe from Apollo 11 because brilliant and I mean brilliant minds worked together. My uncle was one of them and he's the craziest, yet most intelligent person I've ever known. Teamwork is different than collaboration. In teamwork intellectual pursuits can achieve great success, but collaboration needs to be tempered, because many times collaboration means just talking and sharing with weaker members, but teamwork is an ability to effectively communicate, form and dissolve efficiently collaborative groups to optimize for results... That's how I've always separated the two words, might not be for everyone that definition. Also the other great provider of innovation is pressure towards a definable goal, which most organizations lack looking at them as an external, which doesn't mean I'm accurate, but does cause me to question whether this could be an issue that'll need to be addressed. The singular approach had this goal oriented approach build in by its very nature and the collaboration leads to security and it can be difficult to inspire the same degree of engenuity. Wrote from my mobile, so please consider that before you play wack a mole with my comment.

EGreg 10y ago

Yes! Collaboration may lead even to open source drugs: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=93 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=93

abrax3141 10y ago

This is all confusion. Science is a "Bayesian Community" (to coin a phrase). It collaborates already, as needed, albeit inefficiently. One could improve the collaborative process, but to strong arm it is just ignorance of everything about science. This is just rich children throwing their money around.