2 ms·

You should instead dedicate newer core into process optimization. We want to find a cure in 9 years, then 8 years, 7 years, 6 years, and so on. With each passin

by kiba 15y ago

You should instead dedicate newer core into process optimization. We want to find a cure in 9 years, then 8 years, 7 years, 6 years, and so on. With each passing year, medical research should be progressing even faster. We don't want to wait ten years for a slightly higher chance of a cure appearing. We want a higher chance of a cure in a much shorter time period. Please include include links that discuss the "better" method that you are describing. It sounds like you just want to "reinvent/disrupt" the process without actually having a plan. It's not a "plan", or a "method". It's a goal. You could start with a small. Figure out what people are doing that should be done by robots or computers. What mistakes people are making that delay the whole research process? Are the bureaucrats holding up the approval for no good reason? How much time you spent fighting politics versus getting things done? The key insight is this: Speeds absolutely matter in medicine. One more day you wait for a cure, somebody die. If speed is not one of your nation's research goal, it should be.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
This sounds like a very naive view of biological systems. The complexity of the most complex thing computer science has created (I would argue that is the Internet) is still trivially simple compared to the brain. What that means is the search space is huge, much larger than any space I've dealt with in computer science. However, there may be something to what you are saying (I don't know enough about medical research to know whether they are already doing this or not). In public key cryptography, you have a huge key space to try if you want to brute force a key (2^64 for a 64 bit key, unsurprisingly). However, you can break a 64 bit key in about 2^40 operations if you use the right technique [1]. Are we spending enough time looking for those techniques? I certainly hope so. There are a lot of smart people in medicine. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet-in-the-middle_attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet-in-the-middle_attack
- kiba 15y ago
  This sounds like a very naive view of biological systems. The complexity of the most complex thing computer science has created (I would argue that is the Internet) is still trivially simple compared to the brain. I am not naive about the difficulty of the problem. Are we spending enough time looking for those techniques? We aren't necessarily looking for better techniques all the time. It could simply be streamlining a step or two in order to make medical research loop tighter. It could mean eliminating a process or two that shouldn't be running. Whatever the case, our researchers should be thinking about novel solutions to the problem instead of mechanically running the lab. The world fastest machine might not be able to make an intractable problem tractable, but it shouldn't be a bottleneck.
  - SudarshanP 15y ago
    I have a brother who was working towards a phd at a good biology/neuroscience research institutes. Here is one thing I totally agree with... A lot of people who are the "researchy/analytical mindset" underestimate the value of automation. The mantra should be "no human shall do what a robot can do". The problem with biology is that most of the time spent by the researcher is in "doing" rather "thinking" or figuring things out. And even more work and money in pushing paperwork.

by kiba 15y ago

SoftwareMaven 15y ago

This sounds like a very naive view of biological systems. The complexity of the most complex thing computer science has created (I would argue that is the Internet) is still trivially simple compared to the brain. What that means is the search space is huge, much larger than any space I've dealt with in computer science. However, there may be something to what you are saying (I don't know enough about medical research to know whether they are already doing this or not). In public key cryptography, you have a huge key space to try if you want to brute force a key (2^64 for a 64 bit key, unsurprisingly). However, you can break a 64 bit key in about 2^40 operations if you use the right technique [1]. Are we spending enough time looking for those techniques? I certainly hope so. There are a lot of smart people in medicine. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet-in-the-middle_attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet-in-the-middle_attack

kiba 15y ago
This sounds like a very naive view of biological systems. The complexity of the most complex thing computer science has created (I would argue that is the Internet) is still trivially simple compared to the brain. I am not naive about the difficulty of the problem. Are we spending enough time looking for those techniques? We aren't necessarily looking for better techniques all the time. It could simply be streamlining a step or two in order to make medical research loop tighter. It could mean eliminating a process or two that shouldn't be running. Whatever the case, our researchers should be thinking about novel solutions to the problem instead of mechanically running the lab. The world fastest machine might not be able to make an intractable problem tractable, but it shouldn't be a bottleneck.
- SudarshanP 15y ago
  I have a brother who was working towards a phd at a good biology/neuroscience research institutes. Here is one thing I totally agree with... A lot of people who are the "researchy/analytical mindset" underestimate the value of automation. The mantra should be "no human shall do what a robot can do". The problem with biology is that most of the time spent by the researcher is in "doing" rather "thinking" or figuring things out. And even more work and money in pushing paperwork.