5 ms·

Unfortunately, medical technology is not even remotely advancing exponentially. The rate of new drug approvals is decreasing (and costs are rising); we are appa

by WWWWH 13y ago

Unfortunately, medical technology is not even remotely advancing exponentially. The rate of new drug approvals is decreasing (and costs are rising); we are appallingly bad at turning biochemical knowledge into medical technology. Now, I know you weren't talking about drugs as such, but they are a reasonable proxy for our ability to understand a biological system and then intervene. And the state of the industries that try and do this, strongly suggests that we haven't got a clue. Just to lay the pessimism on a little thicker, we may even be lucky to stay where we are, given the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Never mind immortality, I'd be happy to know that we still have working antibiotics when I roll up to hip replacement age! edit: My grammer sucks.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
robinhoode 13y ago
> The rate of new drug approvals is decreasing (and costs are rising); we are appallingly bad at turning biochemical knowledge into medical technology. Why should we measure medical technology at the rate of new drugs developed? What about the speed of DNA sequencing advancing faster than Moore's law? What about Organovo's recent claims on 3D printing organs, with vascular system in place, by next year? What about advanced prothesis that can provide touch senses to the user? Or even visual or audio prothesis, made possible with advancements in brain-computer interfaces? Your argument basically boils down to saying that the rate of CPU clock speeds developed in recent history is indicative of an overall slowdown in computer science. Clearly there are other paradigms that need to be explored before we can say that Moore's law is no longer relevant, let alone all of computing. Yes, the average of all medical tech is going to always lag behind computing for ethical reasons. And that of course, there are ways we can improve medical testing using stem cell research. But to say that we're at risk of moving backwards because one or two particular areas are in serious need of optimization is a bit far-fetched.
- WWWWH 13y ago
  > Why should we measure medical technology at the rate of new drugs developed? Well, I'd stand behind the assertion that it is a reasonable approximation to our ability to understand and modify a biological system. But, I'll happily concede that this is not the only game in town. Your point about tissue engineering is well made, this is highly exciting and should provide some real benefits. But there is a awful lot of hard biology to master here; so while I really hope that we see some rapid initial progress, long term exponential growth here is going to be just as difficult as it is elsewhere in biology.
  - robinhoode 13y ago
    > But there is a awful lot of hard biology to master here I honestly think most of it can be skipped. The age-old adgage that "a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is totally obsolete with respect to longevity science. Once you've gone past your DNA's "expiration date", it's easier to repair damage than prevent it.
  - electromagnetic 13y ago
    Drug development also hinges on the false belief that invented drugs are the most effective (ginger worked better for my wife's morning sickness than any drug she was allowed to take, including morning sickness meds) at treating a condition. DNA sequencing and GMOs would allow us to rapidly implement the medical grade production of substances we're trying to chemically mimic with drugs. It will also allow for easier production of these compounds so we can even test some of them in the first place.
wissler 13y ago
Unfortunately, medical technology is not even remotely advancing exponentially. Which is why we desperately need the government to get the boot off the necks of potential innovators and customers.
- krapp 13y ago
  >Which is why we desperately need companies to be able to make any medicinal claims at all about their products without being forced to substantiate them. ftfy. edit: downvote away, i deserve a hit for that.
  - wissler 13y ago
    Useful idiot.
    - krapp 13y ago
      My idiocy is useful to science and the public welfare, whereas yours is useful to snake-oil salesmen and quacks.
      - wissler 13y ago
        Which is why you make moronic assertions unsubstantiated by logic or evidence.
        krapp 13y ago
        The only assertion I make is that it's better for medicine to be regulated and have standards than not.
        wissler 13y ago
        You didn't merely make the bald-faced assertion, you were very rude about it with your snide "ftfy". I've studied this stuff for years. I understand your status quo view, that thinks that good intentions are a substitute for philosophic rigor. Your view doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny, and it's holding all of mankind back.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Unfortunately, medical technology is not even remotely advancing exponentially. The rate of new drug approvals is decreasing (and costs are rising) New drug development is not the whole of medical technology any more than higher clock speeds are the whole of computing technology development.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by WWWWH 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

robinhoode 13y ago

> The rate of new drug approvals is decreasing (and costs are rising); we are appallingly bad at turning biochemical knowledge into medical technology. Why should we measure medical technology at the rate of new drugs developed? What about the speed of DNA sequencing advancing faster than Moore's law? What about Organovo's recent claims on 3D printing organs, with vascular system in place, by next year? What about advanced prothesis that can provide touch senses to the user? Or even visual or audio prothesis, made possible with advancements in brain-computer interfaces? Your argument basically boils down to saying that the rate of CPU clock speeds developed in recent history is indicative of an overall slowdown in computer science. Clearly there are other paradigms that need to be explored before we can say that Moore's law is no longer relevant, let alone all of computing. Yes, the average of all medical tech is going to always lag behind computing for ethical reasons. And that of course, there are ways we can improve medical testing using stem cell research. But to say that we're at risk of moving backwards because one or two particular areas are in serious need of optimization is a bit far-fetched.

WWWWH 13y ago
> Why should we measure medical technology at the rate of new drugs developed? Well, I'd stand behind the assertion that it is a reasonable approximation to our ability to understand and modify a biological system. But, I'll happily concede that this is not the only game in town. Your point about tissue engineering is well made, this is highly exciting and should provide some real benefits. But there is a awful lot of hard biology to master here; so while I really hope that we see some rapid initial progress, long term exponential growth here is going to be just as difficult as it is elsewhere in biology.
- robinhoode 13y ago
  > But there is a awful lot of hard biology to master here I honestly think most of it can be skipped. The age-old adgage that "a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is totally obsolete with respect to longevity science. Once you've gone past your DNA's "expiration date", it's easier to repair damage than prevent it.
- electromagnetic 13y ago
  Drug development also hinges on the false belief that invented drugs are the most effective (ginger worked better for my wife's morning sickness than any drug she was allowed to take, including morning sickness meds) at treating a condition. DNA sequencing and GMOs would allow us to rapidly implement the medical grade production of substances we're trying to chemically mimic with drugs. It will also allow for easier production of these compounds so we can even test some of them in the first place.

wissler 13y ago

Unfortunately, medical technology is not even remotely advancing exponentially. Which is why we desperately need the government to get the boot off the necks of potential innovators and customers.

krapp 13y ago
>Which is why we desperately need companies to be able to make any medicinal claims at all about their products without being forced to substantiate them. ftfy. edit: downvote away, i deserve a hit for that.
- wissler 13y ago
  Useful idiot.
  - krapp 13y ago
    My idiocy is useful to science and the public welfare, whereas yours is useful to snake-oil salesmen and quacks.
    - wissler 13y ago
      Which is why you make moronic assertions unsubstantiated by logic or evidence.
      - krapp 13y ago
        The only assertion I make is that it's better for medicine to be regulated and have standards than not.
        wissler 13y ago
        You didn't merely make the bald-faced assertion, you were very rude about it with your snide "ftfy". I've studied this stuff for years. I understand your status quo view, that thinks that good intentions are a substitute for philosophic rigor. Your view doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny, and it's holding all of mankind back.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Unfortunately, medical technology is not even remotely advancing exponentially. The rate of new drug approvals is decreasing (and costs are rising) New drug development is not the whole of medical technology any more than higher clock speeds are the whole of computing technology development.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]