7 ms·

This is one key comment that fundamentally differentiates software/hardware from biotech: "Overall the power of recombinant technology and its rapid growth in t

This is one key comment that fundamentally differentiates software/hardware from biotech: "Overall the power of recombinant technology and its rapid growth in the 1970s/1990s didn’t necessarily translate into success for new technologies." Powerful abstractions and pervasive feedback loops across the hardware and software stack is what fundamentally enabled rapid innovation in tech; those same ideas haven't developed even close to the same degree in the biotech space.

est31 6y ago
One of the reasons why biotech has so low success is that we see it as kinda ok to unleash a half tested app onto people, basically most startup apps out there, while new drugs are extremely hard to get tested. It's kinda understandable given that some drugs can have serious negative long term effects on people, whereas a buggy CRUD app can't really do much harm in comparison. While the costs of a "buggy" drug are usually larger than the cost of a buggy app, the benefits of a "good" drug are usually larger than the benefit of yet another app to share pictures, or a uber but for X. Just see how much it costs to save the economy just from the corona measures. The opposite of that is the benefit of a 1 year increase of people's healthy life spans, much more in fact as only parts of the economy were shut down.
- neilv 6y ago
  I think "move fast, and break things" isn't as catchy, when it's harder to ignore that "things" being broken are often people.
  - est31 6y ago
    Spot on.
  - jamestimmins 6y ago
    Yeah "move fast and kill people" doesn't have the same ring to it
  - somurzakov 6y ago
    modern pharma R&D is pretty much move fast and break things. All modern pharma firms spend enourmous effort to ensuring that errors are cought as early as possible (shift left) in R&D. Hundreds of molecule candidates are discarded before reaching Phase 3 trials
  - Eridrus 6y ago
    Most of the cost in pharma trials is not due to safety testing, it is in testing whether it is effective and whether it is better than the competition. I'm not really involved in pharma, but there seems to be a decent argument for selling the drug with provisional approval after safety has been established and collecting outcomes data for those who use provisional drugs https://reason.com/2018/02/02/right-to-try-fda-drug-trials/ https://reason.com/2018/02/02/right-to-try-fda-drug-trials/
- Eridrus 6y ago
  I don't think this comparison holds up. In software, the reason to release something early is because it is hard to tell if there is demand for what you have built and getting feedback from the market is vital. In pharma, I think the success criteria are much better understood, but it's just really hard to do what people want. Not so say our regulatory system isn't a shitshow that needs reform, but I don't think there is the same benefit of releasing buggy versions. Having said that, there are a lot of arguments for reforming how we do later stage clinical trials to provide access to potentially life saving drugs as well as reducing the costs of drug development https://reason.com/2018/02/02/right-to-try-fda-drug-trials/ https://reason.com/2018/02/02/right-to-try-fda-drug-trials/
d_silin 6y ago
That's because we lack sufficiently precise computational models of biological systems. It is the "fusion power" problem of biotech. There has been some progress, but this isn't an easy problem to solve (just like controlled fusion).
highfrequency 6y ago
Can you elaborate on this? Why do you think that biotech is missing abstractions and feedback loops that tech benefited from?
- sooheon 6y ago
  The dev -> silicon -> user feedback loop is orders of magnitude faster, cheaper, and more scalable than one that involves wetlabs, clinical trials, regulatory bodies and interfacing with the medical-industrial complex.
echelon 6y ago
This will change when we can spin up whole human bodies for experimentation and discard them at will. We need to clone decephalized humans. Turn off neural plate development. Downregulate genes that cause brain development. Before we get this right we can supplement it with surgical techniques to ensure the clones never have brains and never become sentient. Hook the embryos up to artificial life support that innervate heart, lungs, and replace hormonal signalling. We could have a facility full of live, brainless monoclonal humans. We could perform research that wasn't previously possible due to ethics and invasiveness. As a side benefit, we now have a limitless blood and organ supply for transplantation. Ideally without any antigens that react with transplant patients, guaranteeing transplant recipients never need to take quality of life-altering immunosuppressants. If we can treat real human bodies like lab rats, we'll conquer every cancer and have a real chance of doubling human healthspan. We have to get out of "punch card" phase biology. Unfortunately, it'll require wading out into uncomfortable new frontiers that many won't be happy to broach. This requires that you accept that there is no soul, that humans are code, and that we are now the authors. If I ever get Elon Musk money, I'm doing this.
- d_silin 6y ago
  Bioethiticists will have a field day with you. Also multiple angry mobs from left, right and center.
  - heisbsissi 6y ago
    That's why that company when it exists will happen in China. God help us all.
  - echelon 6y ago
    There's absolutely nothing wrong with what I've proposed. Typically only people that believe in a soul or that humans "should die" take issue. Neither of these is correct in my world view. I can understand the religious perspective, but the romantic idea that limited live spans are good is incredibly twisted. I think people should be immortal, but that's just not feasible. The next best thing is using all of the tools around us to extend our lives as much as possible. I'm tired of biology being so punch-card slow while the compiler is literally staring us in the face. The human is the perfect model organism for everything we want to accomplish, and I've shown that we can ethically build upon it as a platform without harming anyone. Moreover, we can farm it. Never deal with blood or organ shortages, end immunosuppressants for many people, and potentially perform purely regenerative surgeries. A human grown in a lab without a brain is a plant. Dogs, apes, and octopuses are more human than that. Before you fight me, go take on the many acts of animal cruelty in the world. The people that would hold this back are Luddites. This is a faster path to curing cancer. All fifty thousand types of it. edit: Down voters, why not argue your point instead? Because from my perspective your views are a dated death wish.

est31 6y ago

One of the reasons why biotech has so low success is that we see it as kinda ok to unleash a half tested app onto people, basically most startup apps out there, while new drugs are extremely hard to get tested. It's kinda understandable given that some drugs can have serious negative long term effects on people, whereas a buggy CRUD app can't really do much harm in comparison. While the costs of a "buggy" drug are usually larger than the cost of a buggy app, the benefits of a "good" drug are usually larger than the benefit of yet another app to share pictures, or a uber but for X. Just see how much it costs to save the economy just from the corona measures. The opposite of that is the benefit of a 1 year increase of people's healthy life spans, much more in fact as only parts of the economy were shut down.

neilv 6y ago
I think "move fast, and break things" isn't as catchy, when it's harder to ignore that "things" being broken are often people.
- est31 6y ago
  Spot on.
- jamestimmins 6y ago
  Yeah "move fast and kill people" doesn't have the same ring to it
- somurzakov 6y ago
  modern pharma R&D is pretty much move fast and break things. All modern pharma firms spend enourmous effort to ensuring that errors are cought as early as possible (shift left) in R&D. Hundreds of molecule candidates are discarded before reaching Phase 3 trials
- Eridrus 6y ago
  Most of the cost in pharma trials is not due to safety testing, it is in testing whether it is effective and whether it is better than the competition. I'm not really involved in pharma, but there seems to be a decent argument for selling the drug with provisional approval after safety has been established and collecting outcomes data for those who use provisional drugs https://reason.com/2018/02/02/right-to-try-fda-drug-trials/ https://reason.com/2018/02/02/right-to-try-fda-drug-trials/
Eridrus 6y ago
I don't think this comparison holds up. In software, the reason to release something early is because it is hard to tell if there is demand for what you have built and getting feedback from the market is vital. In pharma, I think the success criteria are much better understood, but it's just really hard to do what people want. Not so say our regulatory system isn't a shitshow that needs reform, but I don't think there is the same benefit of releasing buggy versions. Having said that, there are a lot of arguments for reforming how we do later stage clinical trials to provide access to potentially life saving drugs as well as reducing the costs of drug development https://reason.com/2018/02/02/right-to-try-fda-drug-trials/ https://reason.com/2018/02/02/right-to-try-fda-drug-trials/

d_silin 6y ago

That's because we lack sufficiently precise computational models of biological systems. It is the "fusion power" problem of biotech. There has been some progress, but this isn't an easy problem to solve (just like controlled fusion).

highfrequency 6y ago

Can you elaborate on this? Why do you think that biotech is missing abstractions and feedback loops that tech benefited from?

sooheon 6y ago
The dev -> silicon -> user feedback loop is orders of magnitude faster, cheaper, and more scalable than one that involves wetlabs, clinical trials, regulatory bodies and interfacing with the medical-industrial complex.

echelon 6y ago

This will change when we can spin up whole human bodies for experimentation and discard them at will. We need to clone decephalized humans. Turn off neural plate development. Downregulate genes that cause brain development. Before we get this right we can supplement it with surgical techniques to ensure the clones never have brains and never become sentient. Hook the embryos up to artificial life support that innervate heart, lungs, and replace hormonal signalling. We could have a facility full of live, brainless monoclonal humans. We could perform research that wasn't previously possible due to ethics and invasiveness. As a side benefit, we now have a limitless blood and organ supply for transplantation. Ideally without any antigens that react with transplant patients, guaranteeing transplant recipients never need to take quality of life-altering immunosuppressants. If we can treat real human bodies like lab rats, we'll conquer every cancer and have a real chance of doubling human healthspan. We have to get out of "punch card" phase biology. Unfortunately, it'll require wading out into uncomfortable new frontiers that many won't be happy to broach. This requires that you accept that there is no soul, that humans are code, and that we are now the authors. If I ever get Elon Musk money, I'm doing this.

d_silin 6y ago
Bioethiticists will have a field day with you. Also multiple angry mobs from left, right and center.
- heisbsissi 6y ago
  That's why that company when it exists will happen in China. God help us all.
- echelon 6y ago
  There's absolutely nothing wrong with what I've proposed. Typically only people that believe in a soul or that humans "should die" take issue. Neither of these is correct in my world view. I can understand the religious perspective, but the romantic idea that limited live spans are good is incredibly twisted. I think people should be immortal, but that's just not feasible. The next best thing is using all of the tools around us to extend our lives as much as possible. I'm tired of biology being so punch-card slow while the compiler is literally staring us in the face. The human is the perfect model organism for everything we want to accomplish, and I've shown that we can ethically build upon it as a platform without harming anyone. Moreover, we can farm it. Never deal with blood or organ shortages, end immunosuppressants for many people, and potentially perform purely regenerative surgeries. A human grown in a lab without a brain is a plant. Dogs, apes, and octopuses are more human than that. Before you fight me, go take on the many acts of animal cruelty in the world. The people that would hold this back are Luddites. This is a faster path to curing cancer. All fifty thousand types of it. edit: Down voters, why not argue your point instead? Because from my perspective your views are a dated death wish.