What happened to the promise of Genetics?

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by McGirth, Mar 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    I remember in the last 10 years, they have been saying every few months how the gene to this and that disease has been found and that a cure/new drugs were not far off....


    Well, we are 2008, what happened?

    Why has the process that basically involves correlating DNA sequences to incidences of diseases failed in determining and curing the cause of diseases.

    Lastly, what will happen to all these people that work in the genetics field now that the science has proven to be not nearly as fruitful as originally thought?
    test
  2. Offbeat

    Offbeat New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    43,056
    you sure are part of the instant gratification generation.

    understanding how a gene works doesn't exactly help manufacturing of drugs to mimic its activating/deactivating molecules.

    give it another 30, 40 years.
    test
  3. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    ^
    yes, lets wait till all the current generation of geneticists with research chairs, give them more nobel prizes for research that yields no fruits, and are all comfortably retired. THEN, when no one has a financial stake in said theories, tehn we begin to critisize the paradigm.

    Its not about instant gratification, its about prediction and failure to meet said predictions. 10 years was warrented, but 10 years is enough. The human genome project had all sorts of hype surrounding it, which has led to a myriad of patents that ended up being basically placebos. (note the double use of the word MYRIAD -- look it up) Some pople got very rich, while others who invested or paid the thousands for the tests lost alot of money.

    the reality isen't just that they've isolated the GENE and now are working on solutions based on said genes which will take 30-40 years, the reality is that teh correlational methods imployed failed to isolate said genes. i,e. they didun't find the genes for said diseases, as the theory of how genes work it turns out was flawed.


    When predictions in science fail, accountability must occur. It should signal to the scientific community that its time to massively decrease funding and invest resources elsewhere, which IMHO, if the history of past theories that fail to bare fruits continues, it will soon enough.

    imho molecular biology/genetics is not a good field to get into right now.


    I would shift some of those funds over to nanotech which seems promising health wise, even though it wont allow for many patents, which is all the more reason to up funding.
    test
  4. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    Whats your point? Genes/diseases are too complex to be understood? If its possible to unlock (and you can't argue that it isnt) then should probably be someday. Unless you have some proof of how this realm is unreachable by science.

    Genetics is a potentially huge industry. think of the money they would make from the cosmetic applications of this alone. Then the cures and things...I imagine people would pay to keep themselves alive. probably any amount too. It makes sense to continue to pursue this on the business side of things.

    Unless whoever is funding this stuff becomes so discouraged by a lack of results and deads the funeral. I don't even know who are the people researching this. YHou should ask Ghet he probably knows he is banking on these wonder technologies as a way to make himself immortal. I think everybody who is deep in these notions is sort of caught in the fantasy which is probly why you dislike the whole thing so bad.

    but to that I say this

    I say maybe probably. thats the only real answer. i think it ultimately does happen though. you have to remember knowledge stacks up over time and we're going to be here for a minute. With this in mind you would have to have a fairly sour view on human ingenuity to say never on that one. So be more cheery.
    test
  5. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    ^
    agreed. decrease funding don't dry up the well.

    till genetics can come up with new models of how genes/diseases interact to test, there's no point spending billions trying to brute-force map genes with diseases.
    test
  6. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    O I see. Yeah nantech is where its at but I don't think have too many problems w/ funding. Nanotech has applications in everything imaginable not just health so there would be more companies/whoever pumping money than the field of genetiks.
    test
  7. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    besides I imagine the research done in both fields would help each other simultaneously
    test
  8. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    one problem is that patent law is such that in many countries you woulden't be able to get a patent on nanotech (though in the US you probably could, but still today companies look to way more than just the american market to turn a profit), thus the need for more public funding.

    by contrast, one problem with genetics is that since it is predictive (i.e. if you get a genetic test its supposed to predict the likelyhood of disease, thus leading you to take drugs XYZ) there is no clinic testing, unlike with other drugs that cure diseases. Basically a genetic test/drugs with it could be a complete placebo and there would be no way to know.
    test
  9. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    *sigh*

    alright you win

    at post #5
    test
  10. Offbeat

    Offbeat New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    43,056
    i have a b.s. in molecular bio and work for a biotech company doing drug development. the research genetics gives is vital. genetics gives us insulin for diabetics, testosterone for aids patients, cancer drugs, etc. it's not a magical key but it does assist in developing cures and drugs to help people with complex biological problems.
    the technology is always behind because knowing something and actually running the experiments are two different things.

    it takes a massive amount of time to run tests on genes and conduct studies on genetics. a good 4-6 years will give you a solid base on a gene, from there on you probably need another 25 years to really get what you want out of that knowledge.
    test
  11. Korea, Japan, and China have far outpaced us in terms of dramatic advances that they can already apply to their economy.

    The West shuns genetic manipulation, fueled by fear-laden Hollywood films, religious complaints, and environmental zealotry.

    And that is what happened to the promise.
    test
  12. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    I don't know about the rest of the body, but in terms of the brain the problem is that genes tell us a lot about the ingredients but not about the way they're cooked (i.e. external factors), which is the far more important part... understanding this and adapting it is a much more complex problem.
    test
  13. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Oh snap, my nigga Sodium evolved.
    test
  14. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    cool. name the patents and new medical technologies which have proven fruitful (and profitable) from Korea then compare that to what has been produced by western countries.
    Japan has ethical standards so they don't count. If I recall they are actually stricter than those of the US (which are very lax). So does China (But, again you have to to look this up). Korea not so sure about.

    but, feel free to produce actual research about what Korea has produced that is superior and groundbreaking compared to say: the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, etc. also feel free to include that fraud fiasco from a couple of years ago, when they found out.

    Also, then Show us what percentage of the Korean economy is supported by these new technologies, so that we can see for ourselves these awsome economic benefits.

    Further, show us then specific board members on high up ethics boards in the west who make these decisions. And then show us how their say, doctorates and postdocs from places from Oxford and Harvard are fake, and how they really just sit in theatres watching Hollywood movies to make decisions.


    your argument is very strong. now just provide the proof to back it up and I will be convinced!
    test
  15. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    Agreed, research genetics gives us is vital. My only issue is with methods used in gene isolation and genetics tests and their relation to research funding and patent grants.

    Also your working in the private sector, which I am totally for.

    As long as the patent laws are sound so as not to allow untestable results/abstract claims through, then youworking on drugs can only be a good thing. Also, there shoudl be stricter laws governing marketing budgets of drug companies, again, to make sure they have drugs based on sound science and are not pushing placebos.
    test
  16. Tequila Jong-il

    Tequila Jong-il SALAD TOSSER

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,426

    Why should he? you're the one whose argument is 'someone told me genetics was ill, but not every disease has been cured so its shit'
    test
  17. Tequila Jong-il

    Tequila Jong-il SALAD TOSSER

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,426
    What the fuck are you talking about? Drugs already have to demonstrate a superiority over placebo before getting to market. What do you think the FDA does?
    test
  18. Simple.

    http://www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem.aspx?name=30775689&chid=0&taxid=23
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=22ba5efcce0d8d9a40083aca8b376ed5
    http://bigblog.com/nanotech/utd-nan...nvestment-industrial-partners-1323080870.html (South Korea wants part of that patent from American research!)
    http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Genetics.aspx?Name=genetics&infoId=16734
    http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=167

    One Woo-Suk doesn't offset the entire infrastructure of venture capitalism.
    test
  19. Offbeat

    Offbeat New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    43,056
    the drugs that finally hit the market have been through rigorous FDA testing and met all of their standards. they're not placebos, although sometimes it does happen. and even when these placebos hit the market, the consumer is efficient and these things are quickly weeded out. it's not perfect, but trust me, these things are highly regulated. a company isn't going to take on tens of millions in debt to put out a placebo that will probably not recoup the investment by the time it's debunked. one of our clients pays us 300k/month for the manufacture of one of their drugs, and we have a seven year contract. do the math. i think all of the drugs that make it to market are considered effective in good faith.
    test
  20. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    wrong, learn to read.

    my question is why have the promises failed, which is an open question. One answer i'm hinting at in my posts is problem with patent granting and research funding.

    as per testing procedures, explain to me how genetic tests are FDA tested?
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)