On 2/15/2015 5:35 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
On the other hand, like so many of us, I can admit to a bias *against*
rapid technology deployment (not necessarily against rapid scientific
development. )
One treatment for relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis is dimethyl
fumarate. This goes for about $50k a year as a prescription (with
various inactive chemicals), but the chemical itself can be purchased
for about $25 a kilogram from Alibaba (no I'm not suggesting anyone do
that). The cost is not the synthesis of the chemical, or even the
theoretical development. It's large scale human testing of this use
case. The testing is appropriate: Patients who aren't that sick
shouldn't get more sick from the chemical.
There are more pressing conditions like MRSA super bugs or Ebola where
treatment is urgent. (Incidentally, ZMapp for Ebola is another
genetically engineered treatment.) It seems to me in these cases that
rapid technology deployment is needed. The experimental designs won't
be ideal, but is it better to just let people die if there is reason to
think a treatment might help? This is not to diminish the importance
of investing in basic biology, but shotgun testing of compounds is not
unheard of in the big business of pharmaceuticals. Let's be clear on
how the sausage and statistics are made...
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
