6 ms·

Wow, that's amazing. I hope the results hold up. My father died of type 2 non hodkins lymphoma in 1997 when I was 17; he was sick for 4 years from two rounds

by earl 15y ago

Wow, that's amazing. I hope the results hold up. My father died of type 2 non hodkins lymphoma in 1997 when I was 17; he was sick for 4 years from two rounds of lymphoma, plus a marrow transplant. Every time I read about advances like this I feel bad about wasting my life building better advertising instead of doing biomed. I just wish biomed paid better wages -- I much more than doubled my income by leaving a wetlab and doing advertising instead. It's a lesson in what our society really values. And now I feel like Steve Yegge.

Iv 15y ago
You can help by working in biomed or by giving them money. In your situation the obvious choice is not to change career.
tapp 15y ago
> I just wish biomed paid better wages -- I much more than doubled my income by leaving a wetlab and doing advertising instead. It's a lesson in what our society really values. This bothers me greatly. I don't want to threadjack, but are any HN'ers aware of discussion elsewhere about what concerned members of society who do value biomed progress more strongly than most, but who don't have Milken-level money might be able to do to promote faster progress? I'd be very interested in exploring how YC-like entrepreneurial energy could be unleashed on improving human health, and would be willing to chip in.
- reasonattlm 15y ago
  The short term solution is venture philanthropy, something that Peter Thiel has spoken on recently: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/12/peter-thiel-encourages-radical-philanthropy.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/12/peter-thiel-encou... In short big philanthropy needs a component that looks a lot like the venture capital industry, and doesn't currently have it. Lots of smaller, big risk, potentially game changing bets rather than stultifying into safe big-budget, incremental institutional irrelevance. In this case, for example, this research was rescued from years further of oblivion by a funding source that was willing to take a risk. Much thinking has taken place on this. You might look at some of Aubrey de Grey's early publications on the triangular log jam for example: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2004/06/the-curious-case-of-the-catatonic-biogerontologists.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2004/06/the-curious-case-...
- nimrody 15y ago
  Don't hold your breath... Product cycle is much slower in the biomed industry and much more expensive. Potential financial gains are high, but risk is also very high. Even getting started in this industry means a hefty investment is necessary. In short, not really suitable for a YC-like incubator. At least not at this point.
bdr 15y ago
I don't think your conclusion about society's values necessarily follows. In a society that valued biomed more, you'd have to pay the same candidate a higher salary to get them to work in advertising.
- tocomment 15y ago
  Ewww wierd
- zasz 15y ago
  Uh, typically when society "values" an industry more, they show their appreciation of this value through a higher salary.
- huxley 15y ago
  Exactly, a perfect example of this is how society values cleaning ladies much more highly than brain surgeons or CEOs. Usually you have to pay brain surgeons and CEOs orders of magnitude more money to take those jobs, when normally they might prefer to live off the glory of cleaning up after slobs.
jonhohle 15y ago
> It's a lesson in what our society really values. Not to be a jerk, but it's about what _you_ value. If you value money (or lifestyle, or whatever drew you to advertising) over whatever you were doing previously, you've had your way. If you don't, you have the choice to go back. Don't feel bad about not working in the right industry; just remember that there are thousands of ways to help progress the state of the art, raise money or awareness for those progressing the state of the art, or even just helping people and their families dealing with cancers. I don't work in a philanthropic job. I would like to, but value the financial stability of something further removed from pure altruism.
- earl 15y ago
  Characterizing not wanting a lower middle class lifestyle as wanting "money or lifestyle [sic]" is ridiculous. Working in a wetlab is essentially me making a $80K annual donation to charity, and amongst other things, would turn my student loans from a minor nuisance into a major expenditure. If society actually valued medical and cancer treatments instead of mouthing the words (which is free), there wouldn't be disparities like that, and working in a wetlab wouldn't be a major life sacrifice. In practice, we spend $31B or so on the NIH [1], but we have $170B in fiscal year 2010 [2] for Iraq and Afghanistan, plus all the tail costs involved. [1] http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/NIH_BIB_020911.pdf http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/NIH_BIB_0209... [2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    Society doesn't value cures - where's the money in that? Society _really_ gets off on long-term addictions.
    - umjames 15y ago
      Reminds me of the Chris Rock skit. The money is in the medicine, not the cure. I'm generalizing, but It seems as if institutions who have made a living researching treatments to major diseases don't seem that interested in cures. That could threaten their existence. So they put their money in providing hospital services instead of research. They can't get government money for research grants if their idea for research seems too unorthodox. In the end, it's about protecting jobs and finding a way for you to live longer with the disease.
checoivan 15y ago
Similar story here. Mom died of the same disease. I did join a stem cell related company from their beginnings. It was cool to see it grow thinking I was doing good, until I realized at least in my case it was more about making the owners money rather than finding cures for these kind of diseases. Quitting the day job and switching to biomed maybe could help, but I believe instead there's a need to start something more radical rather than being +1 cog.

by earl 15y ago

Iv 15y ago

You can help by working in biomed or by giving them money. In your situation the obvious choice is not to change career.

tapp 15y ago

> I just wish biomed paid better wages -- I much more than doubled my income by leaving a wetlab and doing advertising instead. It's a lesson in what our society really values. This bothers me greatly. I don't want to threadjack, but are any HN'ers aware of discussion elsewhere about what concerned members of society who do value biomed progress more strongly than most, but who don't have Milken-level money might be able to do to promote faster progress? I'd be very interested in exploring how YC-like entrepreneurial energy could be unleashed on improving human health, and would be willing to chip in.

reasonattlm 15y ago
The short term solution is venture philanthropy, something that Peter Thiel has spoken on recently: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/12/peter-thiel-encourages-radical-philanthropy.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/12/peter-thiel-encou... In short big philanthropy needs a component that looks a lot like the venture capital industry, and doesn't currently have it. Lots of smaller, big risk, potentially game changing bets rather than stultifying into safe big-budget, incremental institutional irrelevance. In this case, for example, this research was rescued from years further of oblivion by a funding source that was willing to take a risk. Much thinking has taken place on this. You might look at some of Aubrey de Grey's early publications on the triangular log jam for example: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2004/06/the-curious-case-of-the-catatonic-biogerontologists.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2004/06/the-curious-case-...
nimrody 15y ago
Don't hold your breath... Product cycle is much slower in the biomed industry and much more expensive. Potential financial gains are high, but risk is also very high. Even getting started in this industry means a hefty investment is necessary. In short, not really suitable for a YC-like incubator. At least not at this point.

bdr 15y ago

I don't think your conclusion about society's values necessarily follows. In a society that valued biomed more, you'd have to pay the same candidate a higher salary to get them to work in advertising.

tocomment 15y ago
Ewww wierd
zasz 15y ago
Uh, typically when society "values" an industry more, they show their appreciation of this value through a higher salary.
huxley 15y ago
Exactly, a perfect example of this is how society values cleaning ladies much more highly than brain surgeons or CEOs. Usually you have to pay brain surgeons and CEOs orders of magnitude more money to take those jobs, when normally they might prefer to live off the glory of cleaning up after slobs.

jonhohle 15y ago

> It's a lesson in what our society really values. Not to be a jerk, but it's about what _you_ value. If you value money (or lifestyle, or whatever drew you to advertising) over whatever you were doing previously, you've had your way. If you don't, you have the choice to go back. Don't feel bad about not working in the right industry; just remember that there are thousands of ways to help progress the state of the art, raise money or awareness for those progressing the state of the art, or even just helping people and their families dealing with cancers. I don't work in a philanthropic job. I would like to, but value the financial stability of something further removed from pure altruism.

earl 15y ago
Characterizing not wanting a lower middle class lifestyle as wanting "money or lifestyle [sic]" is ridiculous. Working in a wetlab is essentially me making a $80K annual donation to charity, and amongst other things, would turn my student loans from a minor nuisance into a major expenditure. If society actually valued medical and cancer treatments instead of mouthing the words (which is free), there wouldn't be disparities like that, and working in a wetlab wouldn't be a major life sacrifice. In practice, we spend $31B or so on the NIH [1], but we have $170B in fiscal year 2010 [2] for Iraq and Afghanistan, plus all the tail costs involved. [1] http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/NIH_BIB_020911.pdf http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/NIH_BIB_0209... [2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html
- Vivtek 15y ago
  Society doesn't value cures - where's the money in that? Society _really_ gets off on long-term addictions.
  - umjames 15y ago
    Reminds me of the Chris Rock skit. The money is in the medicine, not the cure. I'm generalizing, but It seems as if institutions who have made a living researching treatments to major diseases don't seem that interested in cures. That could threaten their existence. So they put their money in providing hospital services instead of research. They can't get government money for research grants if their idea for research seems too unorthodox. In the end, it's about protecting jobs and finding a way for you to live longer with the disease.

checoivan 15y ago

Similar story here. Mom died of the same disease. I did join a stem cell related company from their beginnings. It was cool to see it grow thinking I was doing good, until I realized at least in my case it was more about making the owners money rather than finding cures for these kind of diseases. Quitting the day job and switching to biomed maybe could help, but I believe instead there's a need to start something more radical rather than being +1 cog.