3 ms·
”You can't make an MVP of a cure for cancer” That’s linear thinking. Yes you can.
by egfx 7y ago
”You can't make an MVP of a cure for cancer”
That’s linear thinking. Yes you can.
- kevincennis 7y agoCan you expand on this?
- egfx 7y agoI'll give an example to expand on. What if disease was connected to neuron signatures in the brain? The brain is the central organism and the ruler of everything. It controls functions like breathing and sleep and so on. You could have technology that modulated breathing for example or games that prescribed shots of dopamine or made you more intuitive. Going further, maybe you could have realtime gene splicing that connected to other API's that worked with the brain. This is the future.
- pc86 7y agoI think my problem is RodgerTheGreat said "You can't _____" and your response was "Yes you can." Neither one of you provided anything by way of supporting details, citations, etc. At least RTG expanded a little, but even that was just an explanation of why they felt the way they did, nothing even approaching proof.
- egfx 7y agosay what? This article just hit the front page https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21865579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21865579
- RodgerTheGreat 7y agoIt is possible to tackle any of the engineering challenges I listed in an incremental fashion. That isn't the point. The context of a "Minimum Viable Product" is a mental model of products, markets, and profitability. There is a fundamental difference between the goal "cure cancer" and the goal "make money from a cancer cure". The perverse incentives and loopholes of the latter are a serious impediment to the former.
- egfx 7y agoYou don't think you can make money from a cancer cure and cure cancer at the same time?
- aspaceman 7y agoNo. They said the exact opposite of that.
- ohithereyou 7y agoNot OP, but no - the profit motive is the main perverter of the pharmaceutical industry. By talking a profit you ensure that your cancer treatment will not cure cancer - too few people will have access to cure the disease and millions will still suffer and die needlessly. I guess a few rich, first worlders would live, so it's not all bad. People celebrate Jonahs Salk because not only did he develop the polio vaccine but he rejected his opportunity to massively profit from it because it was more important that patients have access. No company that develops a cancer cure these days would do that. Their shareholders would revolt, their boards would fire their exeutives, their stock prices would plunge, and their competitors would pile on.
- perl4ever 7y agoWhat to do if you have a cure is an imaginary problem. Regulators set minimum standards for efficacy which involve a treatment being just barely statistically significant. The problem is not burying cures, because playing the game of "make believe a treatment is better than placebo" is infinitely simpler than coming up with a cure. The cures people believe in are like the infamous 200 mpg carburetor.
- zadkey 7y agoI'm pretty sure he's making reference to the large pharmaceutical companies that earn more by treating problems than fixing them. The incentive is to continuously charge these people for the rest of their life. They make more money if you stay sick, so they can keep treating you. If you are cured, then the flow of money stops until you get sick again.
- Robotbeat 7y agoIndeed. For instance, suppose you thought you had a path for a general cure for cancer, but getting regulatory approval for use on humans would be too expensive and time consuming. So cure dog cancer. Regulatory burden would be far less, and everyone would love you (if it works...).
- pjc50 7y agoYou can't get it through the FDA trials, though.