Eroom's law(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Eroom's law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroom%27s_law
35 comments
> There is no causality in either of these "laws", and that fact makes them mere observations of trends rather than proper scientific laws.
There's a lot in science that's mere observation.
The law of gravity is one example, since nobody knows where gravity actually comes from.
There's a lot in science that's mere observation.
The law of gravity is one example, since nobody knows where gravity actually comes from.
Good catch, I had to correct that bit upon re-reading.
What I am truly aiming at is the quality of universality (applicability throughout time and space) that these observations lack.
With gravity we see a principle which, when mathematically described in sufficient detail, is consistent throughout space and time. What we know of it, we know only due to the observations we can make locally and in our timeline thus far; however, even with such a limited view, we can already see that gravity very likely is as it has always been and is the same throughout the universe. This is certainly not true of neither Moore's law nor Eroom's law.
With gravity we see a principle which, when mathematically described in sufficient detail, is consistent throughout space and time. What we know of it, we know only due to the observations we can make locally and in our timeline thus far; however, even with such a limited view, we can already see that gravity very likely is as it has always been and is the same throughout the universe. This is certainly not true of neither Moore's law nor Eroom's law.
I see. Another angle is that Moore's and Eroom's laws describe man-made processes (which are thus not universally applicable throughout time), just like e.g. economic laws describe man-made processes.
> The law of gravity is one example, since nobody knows where gravity actually comes from.
Please stop this. While I agree with your overall point, we know what causes gravity (the uneven curvature of space due to the distribution of mass). You can find this out by googling "what causes gravity". It's not a mystery anymore.
Please stop this. While I agree with your overall point, we know what causes gravity (the uneven curvature of space due to the distribution of mass). You can find this out by googling "what causes gravity". It's not a mystery anymore.
That is just the mathematical description of gravity according to general relativity. We don't have a theory for how the uneven curvature of space happens and we don't have a quantum mechanical theory for gravity either (gravitons are hypothetical, not proven).
You are right, but my point is that general relativity gives us enough of a causal model for gravity that throwing up our hands and saying "It's a mystery" is unacceptable.
It is not unacceptable to say we don't know with certainty -- it's faithful to science. You are correct we have a mathematical "casual" model, but that model is entirely observational. We know what happens with certainty in virtually any gravitational situation, but we remain very uncertain about the underlying mechanism of action. It is faithful and mature to recognize this.
We could split hairs all day, but a more detailed mathematical model like relativity is still just a model. We don't know with certainty why it works, what the underlying mechanism is. I would rather say it's unacceptable to tell people what questions they can't ask than to criticize a particular model.
The law of gravity is not one example.
Moore's law does not pick up on any causal pattern that connects transistor size to time.
The universal law of gravitation does capture a causal pattern that connects masses to other masses.
Whether we "know" what causes gravity or otherwise is irrelevant.
Moore's law does not pick up on any causal pattern that connects transistor size to time.
The universal law of gravitation does capture a causal pattern that connects masses to other masses.
Whether we "know" what causes gravity or otherwise is irrelevant.
In both cases there is a described mechanism which produces the effects that are observed. In the case of Moore's law the mechanism has now been thwarted by physics, everyone knew that this had to happen at some point, but the surprise was how long physics was staved off by clever engineering. In the case of Eroom's law the mechanisms seem strong, regulators will continue to strengthen or at least remain as strong, new drugs will have a higher bar to jump due to old drugs, market economics will dictate that firms will throw money at high risk projects to hail mary out of trouble. So to say that nothing about these trends must hold true misses the point that they are/were strongly founded and could be used to make good predictions about the evolution of the economy and society.
I agree on all points. I merely wish to point out that the proper term for these is "strong trends" not "scientific law".
Scientific laws typically do support a tendency or trend in effect but the accurate description of a present trend is not sufficient to call the observation a "law". To consider that upgrade we need universality and persistence.
The fact that we know Moore's "law" and Eroom's "law" must both stop working at some point in the relatively near future means that they both fail this test.
Scientific laws typically do support a tendency or trend in effect but the accurate description of a present trend is not sufficient to call the observation a "law". To consider that upgrade we need universality and persistence.
The fact that we know Moore's "law" and Eroom's "law" must both stop working at some point in the relatively near future means that they both fail this test.
Very interesting.
Anyone know if this applies to antibiotics? I think a lot of people, myself included, are hoping that new drugs will buy us enough time to solve the sociatal problems (e.g. heavy use in ag) causing antibiotic resistance.
Anyone know if this applies to antibiotics? I think a lot of people, myself included, are hoping that new drugs will buy us enough time to solve the sociatal problems (e.g. heavy use in ag) causing antibiotic resistance.
Yes, it does. More or less every class of antibiotic was invented between 1940 and 1960. Discoveries since that period have been mostly incremental.
The only exception I am aware of is this recent discovery :
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14098
Note that the paper isn't only about a new antibiotic but also about a promising method for making additional discoveries via uncultured bacteria.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14098
Note that the paper isn't only about a new antibiotic but also about a promising method for making additional discoveries via uncultured bacteria.
Teixobactin, I assume? Their new method of parallel testing promising proto-antibiotics is really neat, but given the ratio of successes to failures, I wouldn't hold out much hope for a second golden age.
Possibly irrelevant correlation: This is pattern is also observed in graphics techniques and programming styles.
Yet, the incremental quantitative advances continue to accumulate to become qualitative differences.
While modifications of existing classes of antibiotics are still critically important and useful, the big problem is that "new antibiotics that conform to established classes are often subject to at least some of the same resistances observed in previous members of the class."[0] They help in that they buy time, but development of novel classes of antibiotics is what's necessary to buy more time. And we're going to need a lot of them.[1]
In engineering or any scientific field, incremental progress is clearly still progress. For most other kinds of drugs, time doesn't work against their effectiveness. Texts describe the use of aspirin precursors, such as willow teas, dates back over four thousand years to ancient Sumer. Salicylates haven't stopped being effective since then.
The trouble with antibiotics is that resistance inevitably develops over time even if we manage to curb their misuse. It isn't enough to enough to develop new antibiotics, novel or otherwise; to keep the "miracle of antibiotics" alive, we need to continually to develop novel ones.
0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4159373/
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3085877
In engineering or any scientific field, incremental progress is clearly still progress. For most other kinds of drugs, time doesn't work against their effectiveness. Texts describe the use of aspirin precursors, such as willow teas, dates back over four thousand years to ancient Sumer. Salicylates haven't stopped being effective since then.
The trouble with antibiotics is that resistance inevitably develops over time even if we manage to curb their misuse. It isn't enough to enough to develop new antibiotics, novel or otherwise; to keep the "miracle of antibiotics" alive, we need to continually to develop novel ones.
0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4159373/
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3085877
>we need to continually to develop novel ones
That hits pretty close to what I think I am seeing here.
There are a few assumptions built in to Eroom's "law" which I think we have learned to avoid when looking at Moore's "law".
One is that we will not come up with an alternate or more effective way to address the problems drugs are currently addressing. Another is that we will not come up with a drastically cheaper or more effective way to invent new novel drugs. Still another is that we will not invent a drastically cheaper or more effective way to verify a drug's usefulness and safety.
With Moore's observation, I think people have learned to assume that any observable slow down will be corrected by the invention of some previously unimaginable technique or other machine that will keep things on track. (nothing really makes this have to be true, but we seem to think of it that way)
Similarly, any number of future inventions could completely reverse Eroom's observation.
As we get better at editing genomes, making nanomachines, and increasing the resolution of 3d printers, previously impossible techniques may suddenly make it easy to invent novel drugs, address the same issues without drugs, or change the game in any number of other hard-to-predict ways.
Given these increasingly plausible possibilities, I am inclined to see Eroom's "law" as the mere observation of a relatively short lived trend in human history.
That hits pretty close to what I think I am seeing here.
There are a few assumptions built in to Eroom's "law" which I think we have learned to avoid when looking at Moore's "law".
One is that we will not come up with an alternate or more effective way to address the problems drugs are currently addressing. Another is that we will not come up with a drastically cheaper or more effective way to invent new novel drugs. Still another is that we will not invent a drastically cheaper or more effective way to verify a drug's usefulness and safety.
With Moore's observation, I think people have learned to assume that any observable slow down will be corrected by the invention of some previously unimaginable technique or other machine that will keep things on track. (nothing really makes this have to be true, but we seem to think of it that way)
Similarly, any number of future inventions could completely reverse Eroom's observation.
As we get better at editing genomes, making nanomachines, and increasing the resolution of 3d printers, previously impossible techniques may suddenly make it easy to invent novel drugs, address the same issues without drugs, or change the game in any number of other hard-to-predict ways.
Given these increasingly plausible possibilities, I am inclined to see Eroom's "law" as the mere observation of a relatively short lived trend in human history.
Yes, and in addition, I believe antibiotics are currently considered by pharma companies insufficiently profitable to dedicate significant resources to. They're mainly going after chronic conditions now, since chronic means steady income stream.
While agricultural use is a problem, we have resistance problems even with classes of antibiotics that are never used in agriculture. The problem with antibiotic resistance is economic, not scientific. There is no incentive to develop new antibiotics (or tweaks of existing antibiotics that overcome resistance) under our current regulatory system.
I think that the better than the beatles bit might give way in this case. I'm no medic but I suspect that there are many antibiotic compounds that have failed early trials due to side effects that might be resurrected in a context where 10,000's of people a year die due to resistance. I think that the regulator might get much less cautious and the fact that the old drugs don't work may make things easier.
Also at the moment one issue is that the market for anti-resistant drugs is very small, and current antibiotics are rather cheap. So the spreadsheets show no business case, when this grows to millions of doses a year then at $1k a dose so $10k a course and over 20 years of patent life a $2bn investment starts to look ok.
State intervention should be used to shorten and cheapen that path so that we get less of the actual death without real need business up front. I read with dismay the FP9 preparation reports which stress cohesion as an objective of research funding and I look forward (grimly) to watching the waste of funds that could lead to life saving treatment that this policy will precipitate.
Also at the moment one issue is that the market for anti-resistant drugs is very small, and current antibiotics are rather cheap. So the spreadsheets show no business case, when this grows to millions of doses a year then at $1k a dose so $10k a course and over 20 years of patent life a $2bn investment starts to look ok.
State intervention should be used to shorten and cheapen that path so that we get less of the actual death without real need business up front. I read with dismay the FP9 preparation reports which stress cohesion as an objective of research funding and I look forward (grimly) to watching the waste of funds that could lead to life saving treatment that this policy will precipitate.
I’ve heard a theory that says the era of small molecules targeting single complexes is probably on the sharply downward slope of an asymptote. If we’re lucky that will just mean new therapies which target complex systems rather than single-drug-targets is in sight. If we’re unlucky there will be a harsh gap between the two eras.
Well, I think it's true that traditionally folks trying to do rational drug discovery are better at targeting certain proteins (cell surface receptors; some enzymes) with small molecules than others. Also true that first generation of most drugs were discovered serendipitously and only later was mechanism understood. BUT - notion that we're at the sharp downward slope would be a surprise to most pharmas and biotechs. While there's more of an emphasis on understanding entire pathways rather than single proteins, it's still generally the goal to find a single place in the pathway where a small molecule (or antibody, or whatever) will act. It's also /really/ hard to disrupt protein-protein interactions, though it's possible.
And forgot to mention that there's all sorts of very cool new tools coming - one of my favorites is this one for targeted protein degradation:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28223226
One could argue we are in the beginning of the harsh gap between the two eras. In 2012 the pharma industry contracted for the first time ever. Many industry insiders argue the traditional r&d model is broken
There is an emerging wave of new therapeutic modalities (cell therapy, gene therapy, microbiome therapy, bioelecrronic medicine, etc) but it isn't clear if these will be as significant as antibodies were in the 1980s
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2017/11/28/a-g...
There is an emerging wave of new therapeutic modalities (cell therapy, gene therapy, microbiome therapy, bioelecrronic medicine, etc) but it isn't clear if these will be as significant as antibodies were in the 1980s
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2017/11/28/a-g...
sounds like NASA and governmental space programs. I mean it feels like the cost and complexity of, for example, flying to Moon has been doubling each decade or so since the original Apollo days and have reached today the levels of practical impossibility. (And that state of things set the stage for Musk).
I fear it's the willingness to make massive public investments that has dwindled.
Going to space was never cheap, and I doubt it has ever been cheaper than it is today
Going to space was never cheap, and I doubt it has ever been cheaper than it is today
Part of me wonders if things could improve if the resources put towards "drug discovery" could go further if they were allocated to tooling to allow for individuals to synthesize drugs tailored to their present state.
With increasingly more data available on the drugs released by FDA, EMA, etc, combined with cheap genetic sequencing and other measurements, part of me wonders if the statistical approaches with some sub fields of chemistry combined with bioinformatics could move things from the era where certain drugs are produced in mass to one where getting certain interactions with compounds to take place based on and individuals state.
Razib Kahn talks[0] about this recently:
"There’s a debate that periodically crops up online about the utility, viability, and morality of returning results from genetic tests to consumers. Consumers here means people like you or me. Pretty much everyone.
If you want to caricature two stylized camps, there are information maximalists who proclaim a utopia now, where people can find out so much about themselves through their genome. And then there are information elitists, who emphasize that the public can’t handle the truth. Or, more accurately, that throwing information without context and interpretation from someone who knows better is not just useless, it’s dangerous.
Of course, most people will stake out more nuanced complex positions. That’s not the point. Here is my bottom-line, which I’ve probably held since about ~2010:
[0]https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/04/10/notes-from-the-per...
With increasingly more data available on the drugs released by FDA, EMA, etc, combined with cheap genetic sequencing and other measurements, part of me wonders if the statistical approaches with some sub fields of chemistry combined with bioinformatics could move things from the era where certain drugs are produced in mass to one where getting certain interactions with compounds to take place based on and individuals state.
Razib Kahn talks[0] about this recently:
"There’s a debate that periodically crops up online about the utility, viability, and morality of returning results from genetic tests to consumers. Consumers here means people like you or me. Pretty much everyone.
If you want to caricature two stylized camps, there are information maximalists who proclaim a utopia now, where people can find out so much about themselves through their genome. And then there are information elitists, who emphasize that the public can’t handle the truth. Or, more accurately, that throwing information without context and interpretation from someone who knows better is not just useless, it’s dangerous.
Of course, most people will stake out more nuanced complex positions. That’s not the point. Here is my bottom-line, which I’ve probably held since about ~2010:
- The value for most people in actionable information in direct-to-consumer genetics is probably not there yet when set against the cost.
- With the reduction in the cost of genotyping and sequencing, there’s no way that we have enough trained professionals to handle the surfeit of information. And there will really be no way in 10 years when a large proportion of the American population will be sequenced.[0]https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/04/10/notes-from-the-per...
Moore's law was quite an outlier in the history of technology, and one thing that kept it going is that the returns kept up with the cost of the increasingly complex technology that it demanded.
The paragraph that dismisses the 'low hanging fruit' explanation of Eroom's law looks rather weak to me - it says there are still many potential targets, but does not consider their technical feasibility, cost or potential ROI.
The paragraph that dismisses the 'low hanging fruit' explanation of Eroom's law looks rather weak to me - it says there are still many potential targets, but does not consider their technical feasibility, cost or potential ROI.
To some degree isn't this expected? I mean, if real gdp growth is 1 or 2 percent per year why wouldn't some of that go to drug prices? Plus, why wouldn't this just be a preference thing?
I think the underlying assumption is that more money is being spent for drugs that are equivalent. Is that reasonable or provable assumption?
I think the underlying assumption is that more money is being spent for drugs that are equivalent. Is that reasonable or provable assumption?
This was a superb Wikipedia article and clever name. I particularly like the Beatle's reference.
„The cost of developing a new drug roughly doubles every nine years.[1]“
Via https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xu86bYKVmRE
Via https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xu86bYKVmRE
Both of these statements are mere observations of trends (short term ones in the grand scheme of things). Nothing about the trends observed in "eroom's law" must hold true in the future and, similarly, nothing about the trends observed in "moore's law" must remain true in the future.
There are no causal links behind either of these "laws", nothing to make them universally applicable throughout time. Indeed, both are stated as functions of time with an implied start date. These qualities make both mere observations of trends rather than proper scientific laws.
In the case of Moore's "law" the implied outcome seems optimistic and I think that is why we have so far given a pass on calling it a "law". In the case of Eroom's "law" the implied outcome is much more pessimistic so I am betting that we'll be unlikely to want to recognize it. However, if we accept Moore's observation as a "law", we'll have a hard time pointing to a distinction that prevents Eroom's observation from being a "law".
In my opinion, the right answer is to stop implying that either of these observations are inevitable or representative of a truth about the universe. Then we can properly recognize that both trends are easily subject to disruption through hard work and breakthroughs in related fields, or the lack thereof.