6 ms·

Dustin Moskovitz pours funds into high-risk research

141 points by bcaulfield 9y ago

nonbel 9y ago
"Moskovitz, whose estimated net worth is more than $14 billion, and Tuna have said that they plan to give away most of their fortune during their lifetimes." To get an idea of the money involved here, his life's fortune is about what is currently spent every 6 months on medical research that no one will ever double check (since it is impossible to do): "Overall, the team found that poor materials made the largest contribution to reproducibility problems, at 36%, followed by study design at 28% and data analysis at 26%. The team estimates the overall rate of irreproducibility at 53%, but cautions that the true rate could be anywhere between 18% and 89%. That puts the potential economic cost of irreproducibility anywhere from $10 billion to $50 billion per year." http://www.nature.com/news/irreproducible-biology-research-costs-put-at-28-billion-per-year-1.17711 http://www.nature.com/news/irreproducible-biology-research-c... And irreproducible in principle studies are just the tip of the iceberg. Beyond that there are many problems that can render research useless or misleading (p-hacking, bias due to unblinding, misinterpreting results, incorrect analysis, etc). Just pumping more money into this system rather than trying to change the incentives and practices seems wrong.
hkmurakami 9y ago
Animal Welfare reminds me of David Duffield and Maddie's Fund. http://www.maddiesfund.org/dave-duffield.htm http://www.maddiesfund.org/dave-duffield.htm If you know anyone working in this field, it never hurts to contact this org.
notadoc 9y ago
I'm surprised the "identified 11 priority areas in science" did not include antibiotic research, given that we are rapidly running out of antibiotics as resistance develops, all while virtually nobody is researching or developing new antibiotics.
- coltonv 9y ago
  I know that antibiotic resistance is a problem but can you elaborate on how were rapidly running out right now? I got strep last week and they prescribed me amoxicillin (or penicillin if i was allergic) which are both quite old and established, and still prescribed today.
  - sp332 9y ago
    We are running out of effective antibiotics. It's not the supply of amoxicillin that's the problem, but the rapid increase in bacterial strains that are resistant.
  - notadoc 9y ago
    In short, it's evolution. Bacteria develop resistance when exposed to antibiotics. They lose their effectiveness. This will give you a decent overview of antibiotic resistance: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/antibiotic-resistance/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/antibiotic-resista... If you like to watch documentaries, Frontline has a few on the topic, though each show is several years old now which is an eon to pathogens https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/hunting-the-nightmare-bacteria/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/hunting-the-nightmar... (on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE4VzFz9PPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE4VzFz9PPo ) https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/trouble-with-antibiotics/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/trouble-with-antibio...
    - coltonv 9y ago
      No i know how antibiotic resistance works, i just haven't seen it have any effect on me or anyone I know, which makes the statement "we're rapidly running out" seem distant
benkuhn 9y ago
For anyone else who was confused by the headline: it's "high-risk" research in the sense of "speculative" or likely to have null results, not in the sense of e.g. the lethal virus research that was on here a few days ago.
- ClassyJacket 9y ago
  I read it as 'likely to produce nothing useful'; maybe I'm just not imaginative.
maxander 9y ago
If a philanthropist wants to aim a lot of money at biomedical research, there's many good ways to do it, but I think the most high-impact, lowest-risk would be to fund clinical trials for non-patentable interventions. There are plenty of drugs and therapies that are well-known to work, but which can't be used (or can only be used through much-more-expensive variants) in clinical settings, due to the lack of anyone willing to fund the studies to formally prove their effectiveness to the FDA. A notable example is recent efforts to fund a study on the use of corticosteroids and vitamin C to stabilize patients with sepsis [1]- this would be a huge impact on mortality for patients with all sorts of diseases, since sepsis is a common consequence of lowered immune system functioning or post-surgical infections, but since neither corticosteroids or vitamin C are patentable, there's no commercial incentive to fund trials. Another example is the use of MDMA as a psychiatric drug- any highschool dropout can tell you that it works as a powerful mood-elevating chemical with relatively rare and benign side effects (at least by the standards of psychopharmaceuticals,) but clinical trials were only recently begun after decades of agitating from psychiatrists. The most potent benefits from philanthropic funding tend to be in areas that can't be reached by conventional for-profit commercial work. There's still much more low-hanging fruit out there.
- wonderous 9y ago
  You appear to reference a link via the “[1]” but unable to find the reference you appears to be citing. Beyond that, are you aware of any related notable research, sources, etc. - on the topic you’ve presented for additional reading or action.
  - maxander 9y ago
    Ack, forgot to add the link- [1] was meant to link to https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/sepsis-cure-needs-an-rct/ https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/sepsis-cure-ne... . I couldn’t find a comprehensive treatment of the broader issue on a quick check- I suspect that the nature of an issue revolving around “what we know vs what we formally know” resists discussion in places like scientific journals. But there’s some overlap with more well-known issues, such as antibiotic development- even though new antibiotics can be patented, the return isn’t enough to stimulate nearly sufficient development (e.g. https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/features/why-are-there-so-few-antibiotics-in-the-research-and-development-pipeline/11130209.article https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/fea... .)
kayhi 9y ago
Exciting to see more funds going to research, but cringe knowing the efficiency in how it is spent. Due to procurement not having a research background, they often due poorly negotiating prices for basic scientific chemicals and supplies. The result makes it very difficult for researchers to buy from the open market such as Amazon, etc. Here are 12 tweezers for nearly $700 list price: https://us.vwr.com/store/catalog/product.jsp?catalog_number=89259-984 https://us.vwr.com/store/catalog/product.jsp?catalog_number=... Procurement feels good getting 45% off of list price across all products, but they do not compare the actual price.
- goialoq 9y ago
  I don't have a research background, and I know not to feel good paying $60 for a pair of tweezers. What prevents procurement from buying from Amazon? https://www.amazon.com/Tweezees-Precision-Stainless-Steel-Tweezers/dp/B00LYLJJO2 https://www.amazon.com/Tweezees-Precision-Stainless-Steel-Tw...
  - Q6T46nT668w6i3m 9y ago
    I’m curious about this too. I can’t imagine a procurement office not permitting Amazon! It’s a crazy world.
    - kayhi 9y ago
      The problem is creating many hurdles to purchase. For example, a contract gives the scientific distributor the right to match a price [1]. Scientists need to make this request through their procurement office or to a sales rep. which takes a couple of days and additional paperwork to complete. These extra steps create enough friction that researchers will often by through contracted providers despite them being more expensive. [1] examples: https://procurement.fsu.edu/vendors/VWR https://procurement.fsu.edu/vendors/VWR https://www.dfa.cornell.edu/procurement/news/improved-preferred-supplier-agreements-laboratory-supplies-and-equipment https://www.dfa.cornell.edu/procurement/news/improved-prefer...
jph 9y ago
Congratulations and thank you. If you want to see concrete progress thanks to Dustin and Open Phil, read about Target Malaria, one of the research organizations. I am seeing firsthand the need in Southeast Asia: an emerging drug-resistant "super-malaria" is spreading along the Mekong and is impossible to treat with standard medicine. Big U.S. pharma has no answer for this, and the problem is accelerating. I believe Open Phil and similar independent science funding orgs can give us all a major avenue of research to help save many lives. http://time.com/4960649/super-malaria-southeast-asia/ http://time.com/4960649/super-malaria-southeast-asia/ https://targetmalaria.org/ https://targetmalaria.org/

141 points by bcaulfield 9y ago

"Moskovitz, whose estimated net worth is more than $14 billion, and Tuna have said that they plan to give away most of their fortune during their lifetimes." To get an idea of the money involved here, his life's fortune is about what is currently spent every 6 months on medical research that no one will ever double check (since it is impossible to do): "Overall, the team found that poor materials made the largest contribution to reproducibility problems, at 36%, followed by study design at 28% and data analysis at 26%. The team estimates the overall rate of irreproducibility at 53%, but cautions that the true rate could be anywhere between 18% and 89%. That puts the potential economic cost of irreproducibility anywhere from $10 billion to $50 billion per year." http://www.nature.com/news/irreproducible-biology-research-costs-put-at-28-billion-per-year-1.17711 http://www.nature.com/news/irreproducible-biology-research-c... And irreproducible in principle studies are just the tip of the iceberg. Beyond that there are many problems that can render research useless or misleading (p-hacking, bias due to unblinding, misinterpreting results, incorrect analysis, etc). Just pumping more money into this system rather than trying to change the incentives and practices seems wrong.

hkmurakami 9y ago

Animal Welfare reminds me of David Duffield and Maddie's Fund. http://www.maddiesfund.org/dave-duffield.htm http://www.maddiesfund.org/dave-duffield.htm If you know anyone working in this field, it never hurts to contact this org.

notadoc 9y ago

I'm surprised the "identified 11 priority areas in science" did not include antibiotic research, given that we are rapidly running out of antibiotics as resistance develops, all while virtually nobody is researching or developing new antibiotics.

coltonv 9y ago
I know that antibiotic resistance is a problem but can you elaborate on how were rapidly running out right now? I got strep last week and they prescribed me amoxicillin (or penicillin if i was allergic) which are both quite old and established, and still prescribed today.
- sp332 9y ago
  We are running out of effective antibiotics. It's not the supply of amoxicillin that's the problem, but the rapid increase in bacterial strains that are resistant.
- notadoc 9y ago
  In short, it's evolution. Bacteria develop resistance when exposed to antibiotics. They lose their effectiveness. This will give you a decent overview of antibiotic resistance: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/antibiotic-resistance/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/antibiotic-resista... If you like to watch documentaries, Frontline has a few on the topic, though each show is several years old now which is an eon to pathogens https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/hunting-the-nightmare-bacteria/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/hunting-the-nightmar... (on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE4VzFz9PPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE4VzFz9PPo ) https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/trouble-with-antibiotics/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/trouble-with-antibio...
  - coltonv 9y ago
    No i know how antibiotic resistance works, i just haven't seen it have any effect on me or anyone I know, which makes the statement "we're rapidly running out" seem distant

benkuhn 9y ago

For anyone else who was confused by the headline: it's "high-risk" research in the sense of "speculative" or likely to have null results, not in the sense of e.g. the lethal virus research that was on here a few days ago.

ClassyJacket 9y ago
I read it as 'likely to produce nothing useful'; maybe I'm just not imaginative.

maxander 9y ago

If a philanthropist wants to aim a lot of money at biomedical research, there's many good ways to do it, but I think the most high-impact, lowest-risk would be to fund clinical trials for non-patentable interventions. There are plenty of drugs and therapies that are well-known to work, but which can't be used (or can only be used through much-more-expensive variants) in clinical settings, due to the lack of anyone willing to fund the studies to formally prove their effectiveness to the FDA. A notable example is recent efforts to fund a study on the use of corticosteroids and vitamin C to stabilize patients with sepsis [1]- this would be a huge impact on mortality for patients with all sorts of diseases, since sepsis is a common consequence of lowered immune system functioning or post-surgical infections, but since neither corticosteroids or vitamin C are patentable, there's no commercial incentive to fund trials. Another example is the use of MDMA as a psychiatric drug- any highschool dropout can tell you that it works as a powerful mood-elevating chemical with relatively rare and benign side effects (at least by the standards of psychopharmaceuticals,) but clinical trials were only recently begun after decades of agitating from psychiatrists. The most potent benefits from philanthropic funding tend to be in areas that can't be reached by conventional for-profit commercial work. There's still much more low-hanging fruit out there.

wonderous 9y ago
You appear to reference a link via the “[1]” but unable to find the reference you appears to be citing. Beyond that, are you aware of any related notable research, sources, etc. - on the topic you’ve presented for additional reading or action.
- maxander 9y ago
  Ack, forgot to add the link- [1] was meant to link to https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/sepsis-cure-needs-an-rct/ https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/sepsis-cure-ne... . I couldn’t find a comprehensive treatment of the broader issue on a quick check- I suspect that the nature of an issue revolving around “what we know vs what we formally know” resists discussion in places like scientific journals. But there’s some overlap with more well-known issues, such as antibiotic development- even though new antibiotics can be patented, the return isn’t enough to stimulate nearly sufficient development (e.g. https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/features/why-are-there-so-few-antibiotics-in-the-research-and-development-pipeline/11130209.article https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/fea... .)

kayhi 9y ago

Exciting to see more funds going to research, but cringe knowing the efficiency in how it is spent. Due to procurement not having a research background, they often due poorly negotiating prices for basic scientific chemicals and supplies. The result makes it very difficult for researchers to buy from the open market such as Amazon, etc. Here are 12 tweezers for nearly $700 list price: https://us.vwr.com/store/catalog/product.jsp?catalog_number=89259-984 https://us.vwr.com/store/catalog/product.jsp?catalog_number=... Procurement feels good getting 45% off of list price across all products, but they do not compare the actual price.

goialoq 9y ago
I don't have a research background, and I know not to feel good paying $60 for a pair of tweezers. What prevents procurement from buying from Amazon? https://www.amazon.com/Tweezees-Precision-Stainless-Steel-Tweezers/dp/B00LYLJJO2 https://www.amazon.com/Tweezees-Precision-Stainless-Steel-Tw...
- Q6T46nT668w6i3m 9y ago
  I’m curious about this too. I can’t imagine a procurement office not permitting Amazon! It’s a crazy world.
  - kayhi 9y ago
    The problem is creating many hurdles to purchase. For example, a contract gives the scientific distributor the right to match a price [1]. Scientists need to make this request through their procurement office or to a sales rep. which takes a couple of days and additional paperwork to complete. These extra steps create enough friction that researchers will often by through contracted providers despite them being more expensive. [1] examples: https://procurement.fsu.edu/vendors/VWR https://procurement.fsu.edu/vendors/VWR https://www.dfa.cornell.edu/procurement/news/improved-preferred-supplier-agreements-laboratory-supplies-and-equipment https://www.dfa.cornell.edu/procurement/news/improved-prefer...

jph 9y ago

Congratulations and thank you. If you want to see concrete progress thanks to Dustin and Open Phil, read about Target Malaria, one of the research organizations. I am seeing firsthand the need in Southeast Asia: an emerging drug-resistant "super-malaria" is spreading along the Mekong and is impossible to treat with standard medicine. Big U.S. pharma has no answer for this, and the problem is accelerating. I believe Open Phil and similar independent science funding orgs can give us all a major avenue of research to help save many lives. http://time.com/4960649/super-malaria-southeast-asia/ http://time.com/4960649/super-malaria-southeast-asia/ https://targetmalaria.org/ https://targetmalaria.org/