Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37435425
343 comments
People would have rolled their eyes, if someone said. I wanted to connect the world. I want to connect virutally everyone, where you can just reach anyone at anyplace at any time for cheap.
30 yrs ago, in a different part of the world. My father had to catch a bus from a village to the city, then catch a plane to a major city to make international phone call to the US to his business partners. Today, people in that same village can sign on to HN and reply to this very post. Or tweet and facebook real time.
Maybe they won't be the one to solve it, maybe it would take a bit longer, who knows? Gotta give it a shot. Maybe we won't cure all the disease. Perhaps we eliminate 85%. That would be great too. Stay optimistic my friend.
30 yrs ago, in a different part of the world. My father had to catch a bus from a village to the city, then catch a plane to a major city to make international phone call to the US to his business partners. Today, people in that same village can sign on to HN and reply to this very post. Or tweet and facebook real time.
Maybe they won't be the one to solve it, maybe it would take a bit longer, who knows? Gotta give it a shot. Maybe we won't cure all the disease. Perhaps we eliminate 85%. That would be great too. Stay optimistic my friend.
> I wanted to connect the world. I want to connect virutally everyone, where you can just reach anyone at anyplace at any time for cheap.
If we're talking about the same time frame, 84 years ago, I don't think most people would doubt that it could happen. This is a period where there was an enormous growth in telecommunications, and I don't think most people thought it was obviously going to suddenly stop and stagnate for 84 years.
My guess is the idea wouldn't have seemed implausible even earlier. Once the telegraph came along, it probably seemed like at least a possibility.
However, if a wealthy individual 84 years ago who hadn't been involved in telecommunications decided to throw some money at it and said they were going to connect everyone 84 years in the future, people would probably be skeptical - and rightly so. Especially if the amount of money was less than many of the smaller players in the industry.
As the article points out (about the Zuckerberg effort), "One British charity - Cancer Research UK - is likely to spend more in that time on just one disease."
And "connect the world" is vague enough that it's easier to claim success with low hanging fruit. This is more like "I want to be able to instantly transfer anything anywhere in 84 years."
If we're talking about the same time frame, 84 years ago, I don't think most people would doubt that it could happen. This is a period where there was an enormous growth in telecommunications, and I don't think most people thought it was obviously going to suddenly stop and stagnate for 84 years.
My guess is the idea wouldn't have seemed implausible even earlier. Once the telegraph came along, it probably seemed like at least a possibility.
However, if a wealthy individual 84 years ago who hadn't been involved in telecommunications decided to throw some money at it and said they were going to connect everyone 84 years in the future, people would probably be skeptical - and rightly so. Especially if the amount of money was less than many of the smaller players in the industry.
As the article points out (about the Zuckerberg effort), "One British charity - Cancer Research UK - is likely to spend more in that time on just one disease."
And "connect the world" is vague enough that it's easier to claim success with low hanging fruit. This is more like "I want to be able to instantly transfer anything anywhere in 84 years."
> Gotta give it a shot. Maybe we won't cure all the disease. Perhaps we eliminate 85%.
85% looks wildly optimistic too. And "giving it a shot" is not exactly new idea somebody needs to be convinced in - people are giving it a shot since the idea of medicine was born, which was probably before recorded history started. If the money they use for research bring fruit - excellent, but I'm not sure money is what limits us (and that 3bn is going to fix that if it were the problem), and certainly arbitrary date and bombastic goals is not what was missing from medical research field before.
85% looks wildly optimistic too. And "giving it a shot" is not exactly new idea somebody needs to be convinced in - people are giving it a shot since the idea of medicine was born, which was probably before recorded history started. If the money they use for research bring fruit - excellent, but I'm not sure money is what limits us (and that 3bn is going to fix that if it were the problem), and certainly arbitrary date and bombastic goals is not what was missing from medical research field before.
Hindsight is 20/20. You can look back on many innovations and say that they'd be impossible to imagine in the past, but that doesn't have any bearing on the inherent viability of a given idea. I'm not saying that the Zuck/Chan moonshot isn't a worthwhile endeavor, only that examples of past skepticism prove nothing about what is actually possible.
> You can look back on many innovations and say that they'd be impossible to imagine in the past
I'd suspect that most innovations would have had plenty of experts and other people saying why they weren't possible.
I'd suspect that most innovations would have had plenty of experts and other people saying why they weren't possible.
There are lots of extraordinary claims being made everyday. It's the correct rule of thumb to be as skeptical possible, for there are many more outrageous claims than there are legitimate ones.
If you're interested in truth you should always be skeptical about everything.
But I think it needs stressing that being skeptical is not the same as being dismissive or ridiculing or having a hostile attitude towards things.
I think that the reason people tend to reject new ideas tends to be more on emotional terms rather than for truly skeptical reasons.
But I think it needs stressing that being skeptical is not the same as being dismissive or ridiculing or having a hostile attitude towards things.
I think that the reason people tend to reject new ideas tends to be more on emotional terms rather than for truly skeptical reasons.
It seems to me like the biggest things are impossible to see with a "normal" outlook. It's as if you either can't see the big thing, or you see it in a fantasy world, a fiction of some kind (science or otherwise).
Take connecting the entire world. Even after the technology existed and had been deployed (the very early system that gave rise to the internet as we know it), people didn't look at that early version connecting a handful of places and think, "Wow, this could connect EVERYONE!" They didn't stand there, looking at the terminals of two connected computers, and imagine a connected world like the one we live in today. They didn't talk about ecommerce and social media global events being reported on in near real time. No one had to roll their eyes, because no one was making these grand claims.
I can't find the link now, but I read somewhere that it took YEARS after the Wright brothers had achieved first flight to get the attention of the world. People didn't see how transformative that thing could become, yet the proof of concept was there.
When you look at all the big tech moments in (recent-ish) history, the car, modern computation, the PC, aviation, you don't see people coming out with these grand declarations before the fact. And it's not for lack of intelligent, visionary people.
So it makes me wonder, whenever a person makes such grandiose plans, and they're not fiction writers, what's so different about them that they'd be able to see so far ahead?
Maybe they're different. How would I know? But history makes me skeptical.
Take connecting the entire world. Even after the technology existed and had been deployed (the very early system that gave rise to the internet as we know it), people didn't look at that early version connecting a handful of places and think, "Wow, this could connect EVERYONE!" They didn't stand there, looking at the terminals of two connected computers, and imagine a connected world like the one we live in today. They didn't talk about ecommerce and social media global events being reported on in near real time. No one had to roll their eyes, because no one was making these grand claims.
I can't find the link now, but I read somewhere that it took YEARS after the Wright brothers had achieved first flight to get the attention of the world. People didn't see how transformative that thing could become, yet the proof of concept was there.
When you look at all the big tech moments in (recent-ish) history, the car, modern computation, the PC, aviation, you don't see people coming out with these grand declarations before the fact. And it's not for lack of intelligent, visionary people.
So it makes me wonder, whenever a person makes such grandiose plans, and they're not fiction writers, what's so different about them that they'd be able to see so far ahead?
Maybe they're different. How would I know? But history makes me skeptical.
I can't find the link now, but I read somewhere that it took YEARS after the Wright brothers had achieved first flight to get the attention of the world. People didn't see how transformative that thing could become, yet the proof of concept was there.
The truth is the opposite: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12433966
Wrights were actually very secretive and they were reluctant to publish anything before they got the patent. They were so adamant about the patent that they didn't do any public demonstration of flight for years until they were literally forced by competing claims. In those times people making claims for "heavier than air" flights were numerous and it was hard to take anyone seriously unless they do demonstration. They not only chose not to do so until they got patent but also did almost nothing to enhance their technology meanwhile. Their contribution except for first flight is very marginal and their rest of the lives are dominated by nothing but patent worries, bringing massive lawsuits on others and getting royalties. They also made a very generic patent claim essentially asserting that any system that produces lift is covered by it. This produced a lot of friction in bringing new innovations to market leaving USA significantly behind of Europe.
In addition to this, there were flight enthusiasts all over the world, and particularly in France. They were hang-glider enthusiasts at the time, as that was the cutting-edge flight technology. One of the famous hang-glider pilots died due to his belief that a hang-glider ought to be controlled by shifting one's body weight, which led to a fatal stall. This further convinced the Wright brothers that "the control problem" was the most important problem to focus on.
A lot of people wanted to fly.
This is all tangential to your point, though, and wasn't meant to take anything away from it.
The truth is the opposite: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12433966
Wrights were actually very secretive and they were reluctant to publish anything before they got the patent. They were so adamant about the patent that they didn't do any public demonstration of flight for years until they were literally forced by competing claims. In those times people making claims for "heavier than air" flights were numerous and it was hard to take anyone seriously unless they do demonstration. They not only chose not to do so until they got patent but also did almost nothing to enhance their technology meanwhile. Their contribution except for first flight is very marginal and their rest of the lives are dominated by nothing but patent worries, bringing massive lawsuits on others and getting royalties. They also made a very generic patent claim essentially asserting that any system that produces lift is covered by it. This produced a lot of friction in bringing new innovations to market leaving USA significantly behind of Europe.
In addition to this, there were flight enthusiasts all over the world, and particularly in France. They were hang-glider enthusiasts at the time, as that was the cutting-edge flight technology. One of the famous hang-glider pilots died due to his belief that a hang-glider ought to be controlled by shifting one's body weight, which led to a fatal stall. This further convinced the Wright brothers that "the control problem" was the most important problem to focus on.
A lot of people wanted to fly.
This is all tangential to your point, though, and wasn't meant to take anything away from it.
In 1915 Nikola Tesla wrote in the New York Times
"Some day there will be, say, six great wireless telephone stations in a world system connecting all the inhabitants on this earth to one another, not only by voice, but by sight. It's surely coming."
"Some day there will be, say, six great wireless telephone stations in a world system connecting all the inhabitants on this earth to one another, not only by voice, but by sight. It's surely coming."
At least some of the networking pioneers did see it as huge: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_Computer_Network https://www.amazon.com/Network-Nation-Revised-Communication-... and http://habitatchronicles.com/2004/04/you-cant-tell-people-an... just for a start.
The whole world was connectable in 1950. The problem was just the cost of manufacturing all of the telephone/telegraph equipment and laying all the cable.
System configuration had a lot to do with it. Telephony was based on physical circuits. "Switchboard operators" literally plugged in cables to connect two phones together. Mechanical switches were just that -- mechanical systems which could join two lines. A telephone prefix (North American system) corresponded (generally) to a switch, which was a dedicated building, usually occupying much of a block, present in a given service area. If your town had a local phone-company building (or multiple buildings), that wasn't an office but the outer case around a large mechanical device. I was quite suprised the first time I was let inside one by the reality.
Virtual and digital switching, or better, packet-based networks, remove that problem. At the heart of most messaging systems now is the directory -- either of individual addresses, or of systems on which those addresses reside. Hence: DNS, MXs, and the like, for email.
(This makes me realise that one way around the Global Directory of Everyone problem of current messaging systems is to split up the address space again.)
Virtual and digital switching, or better, packet-based networks, remove that problem. At the heart of most messaging systems now is the directory -- either of individual addresses, or of systems on which those addresses reside. Hence: DNS, MXs, and the like, for email.
(This makes me realise that one way around the Global Directory of Everyone problem of current messaging systems is to split up the address space again.)
Stay optimistic? How about stay realistic? Lets not dream of fantasies but rather attempt to make accurate predictions unfettered by the biases of optimism or pessimism.
There is a line that can be crossed if I make a prediction and say that by 2100 humanity will become as powerful as Gods. That statement is ludicrous when judged by common sense. It is not unrealistic to the say the same of having ALL diseases cured by 2100.
I'm basically "rolling my eyes" at your comment.
There is a line that can be crossed if I make a prediction and say that by 2100 humanity will become as powerful as Gods. That statement is ludicrous when judged by common sense. It is not unrealistic to the say the same of having ALL diseases cured by 2100.
I'm basically "rolling my eyes" at your comment.
But that is creating something, not fixing something.
The human body is orders of magnitude more complex than the (admittedly uplifting) achievements you mention.
I think the current medical research system is badly broken in several ways, and it's possible that a few billions spent on alternative approaches would bear a lot of fruit.
It might also not, but I'm very glad if someone tries.
It might also not, but I'm very glad if someone tries.
I agree that medical research is broken in many ways. A steady stream of 'outsiders' set out to shake it up, from hedge fund billionaires that discover their kid has an incurable disease to google's calico grabbing some of the most renown industry leadership. I continue to pray for rain, but the advances from such initiatives have been incremental if any, rather than revolutionary. I would say the most impactful model to date has been the Howard Hughes Medical Institure, is focused on fundamental science discovery---where the bulk of the uncertainty lies in drug development.
I am glad to hear of MZ/PC generosity and focus on helping others. Some might take the same money and build the worlds ugliest sailboat, or endow a business school and it would be their right.
All that said, from a biotech start up biotech perspective, $3B a ton of cash. From a Pharma R&D budget, it's significant but it just ain't that much. How they will use it will matter if we are to remember this in 15 years (which is only 1-2 product life cycles for biopharma currently.)
What approaches do you mean? In which ways do you think it's broken?
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-ou...
He quotes Eliezer Yudkowsky:
Parapsychologists are constantly protesting that they are playing by all the standard scientific rules, and yet their results are being ignored – that they are unfairly being held to higher standards than everyone else. I’m willing to believe that. It just means that the standard statistical methods of science are so weak and flawed as to permit a field of study to sustain itself in the complete absence of any subject matter.
This general topic sometimes comes up on HN (most recently, yesterday†). Here's a good starting point:
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=http:%2F%2Fwww.phdcomics.com%2...
† https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12535880
He quotes Eliezer Yudkowsky:
Parapsychologists are constantly protesting that they are playing by all the standard scientific rules, and yet their results are being ignored – that they are unfairly being held to higher standards than everyone else. I’m willing to believe that. It just means that the standard statistical methods of science are so weak and flawed as to permit a field of study to sustain itself in the complete absence of any subject matter.
This general topic sometimes comes up on HN (most recently, yesterday†). Here's a good starting point:
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=http:%2F%2Fwww.phdcomics.com%2...
† https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12535880
[deleted]
That Slate Star Codex article is one of the most depressing things I've read for a while, thank you.
SSC is an underappreciated gem. There's much brilliance in't.
I think the problems are known to many in the field. Getting to the solution for it may be trickier.
Do you have anything from a more reliable source?
I included a reliable source! Click my link to yesterday's HN story. It is an interview with John P.A. Ioannidis, "who is a professor at Stanford University and one of the most highly cited researchers in the world".
[deleted]
I think alternative approaches can bring some things, however, I'm not too sure of all these(Gates a few days back, Zuckerberg today) will encourage alternative approach. But given those guys history, let's hope so.
Without disagreeing with your point, there are actually currently gene therapies to cure trisomy 21 [1] (a clever trick of affixing the signal that is used to silence a (female's)/the (male's) X chromosome to the 3rd of the 21st chromosomes). I don't think it's all the way through FDA approval, and is still very much experimental, but is exactly the kind of thing that is curable. And that is where your point stands: it is hard to know which unknowns are easy unknowns, and which unknowns are nearly impossible unknowns because both are currently of the same quality - unknown. The grandiose claim is fancy, and much will be accomplished in 80 years, but even ill-defined language of 'disease' and 'cure' belies our ignorance.
[1] http://www.biospace.com/News/down-syndromes-extra-chromosome...
[1] http://www.biospace.com/News/down-syndromes-extra-chromosome...
Here's my best prediction for how it's could happen: when the all human immune systems are able to learn from each other, we'll be most of the way there. The immune system is at the center of most human diseases. Cancer? It's the best solution. Infection? Best solution. Autoimmune disease?Fixing the immune system would be the best solution to autoimmune disease. Right now, if you want your body to be immune to something, you're immune system has to learn that particular immunity. If we can form an artificial immune system "culture" then it seems like learning could be much, much faster.
It is. That's why immunotherapies have gone from a fringe area to something super hot attracting tons of funding.
But first, we need to understand the cell. For this we believe we need not only statistical learning, but also formal methods. See e.g. a slightly dated but brilliant paper from Luca Cardelli:
http://lucacardelli.name/Papers/Abstract%20Machines%20of%20S...
But first, we need to understand the cell. For this we believe we need not only statistical learning, but also formal methods. See e.g. a slightly dated but brilliant paper from Luca Cardelli:
http://lucacardelli.name/Papers/Abstract%20Machines%20of%20S...
> Autoimmune disease?Fixing the immune system would be the best solution to autoimmune disease
Zuckerberg should give you all his money.
Zuckerberg should give you all his money.
I'm struggling to see how that can be done without in vivo genetic engineering (to ensure immune compatibility), constant blood surveillance of the population (to detect pathogens), chemical infusions deployed en masse like a firmware update, and giant cube-shaped space ships.
We'd have to develop an external assay that can ensure immune compatibility. If we're lucky, we find a finite set of molecules that lead to immune incompatibilities from person to person and make an assay that focuses on those molecules.
Constant blood surveillance is already a fact--that is, perhaps we don't need more blood. Instead, we just do the immune sequencing on the stream that's already available. Spread out over the whole population, that's a lot of information. Firmware updates, if necessary, could be handled on an as-needed basis, or more generally like flu vaccines.
I'm not sure how the giant cube-shaped space ships will be handled--that's definitely a hurdle to consider.
Constant blood surveillance is already a fact--that is, perhaps we don't need more blood. Instead, we just do the immune sequencing on the stream that's already available. Spread out over the whole population, that's a lot of information. Firmware updates, if necessary, could be handled on an as-needed basis, or more generally like flu vaccines.
I'm not sure how the giant cube-shaped space ships will be handled--that's definitely a hurdle to consider.
How about using commensal bacteria to design an "external immune system" which can respond to any pathogen we program it too. Bacteria coat basically all cavities in your body and could scan incoming threats and respond to them before the human immune system is every involved.
Sure, as long I get to be the programmer and deploy the updates. :) You can call me God-Emperor Tominous.
That doesn't seem too improbable actually. I think that IDE's for designing genetic circuitry aren't far away.
I think we'll create superior bodies for humans that disease never had a chance to adapt to much faster than we'll be able to figure out how to make immune systems communicate without also promoting adaptation from surrounding diseases.
Fixing the existing body is nice, but you're forever limited by what nature intended, and what it intended is just not very good.
Fixing the existing body is nice, but you're forever limited by what nature intended, and what it intended is just not very good.
I, for one, am imagining a news item 84 years into the future - "how letting people share lunch pictures and stalk other people has led to the eradication of all diseases".
The history of technology is filled with cross pollinations of that kind - ex: GPUs invented for high quality 3D amusement being used for AI and protein folding research.
The history of technology is filled with cross pollinations of that kind - ex: GPUs invented for high quality 3D amusement being used for AI and protein folding research.
One would roll one's eyes if someone promised to fix every single bug in a vast, buggy, fifty-year old software project.
But just ending cancer would essentially be a project for externally ameliorating, not even fixing, the bugs of 4 billion years of (genetic) code, code that "just happened" with "bugs" that survived because they weren't selected against.
But just ending cancer would essentially be a project for externally ameliorating, not even fixing, the bugs of 4 billion years of (genetic) code, code that "just happened" with "bugs" that survived because they weren't selected against.
That's doesn't even account for the probably larger number of bugs that develop over the lifetime of the system. Then, once a cancer develops it evolves further mutations over time.
You probably cannot defeat cancer merely by genetic engineering every new birth
You probably cannot defeat cancer merely by genetic engineering every new birth
Epigenetics is the word you're looking for here. And probably some healthy dose of metabolomics. Cancer is way more complex than "just" changes in the genetic code.
I don't think so. I'm sure there are epigenetic effects in cancer but I'm also pretty sure that cancers develop new mutations as they proceed. Ones that fool the immune system or chemotherapy agents get selected for and drive the cancer forward
You can fix all the bugs in the fifty-year old software project... by writing a new version of it.
Sometimes the right solution doesn't deal with existing problems but tries to go somewhere else entirely.
Sometimes the right solution doesn't deal with existing problems but tries to go somewhere else entirely.
So you're suggesting they're going to just give birth to a super race of people ?
I'm suggesting we build a new one, either through genetic engineering or replacement of parts. In the context of Zuckerberg and Chan, this would involve promoting the funding and research of things like stem cells, artificial organs, test tube babies, etc. Given how much such things are opposed to the public, a lot of things could come out of it.
That position assumes things about the fundamental nature of cancer that are not at all proven.
The skepticism is totally warranted, but you have to really consider the strides made in just 100 years. There's practically a Moore's Law of medicine happening.
We're still really dumb about a lot of things related to natural mortality, but exponentially smarter and more capable than we were 50 and then 200 years ago.
We're still really dumb about a lot of things related to natural mortality, but exponentially smarter and more capable than we were 50 and then 200 years ago.
> when X is something incredibly broad like "cancer"
Relevant PHD Comics about how "there will never be a cure for cancer":
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php/archive_print.ph...
Relevant PHD Comics about how "there will never be a cure for cancer":
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php/archive_print.ph...
General-purpose nanorobotics would pretty much allow us to do arbitrary medical procedures with cell-level accuracy. Cancer would be easy. Modifying brain structure would be easy. Pretty much everything would be easy.
See chapter 3 ("Nanotechnology will not lead to super-abundance") of Against Transhumanism for a good argument for why this isn't so simple: http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/201...
Summary
1. Lack of rigidity, excessive stickiness of molecules (Van der Waals force), constant random interactions (Brownian motion) at the microscale of cells means mechanistic intuitions from the macroscale don't apply.
2. High surface area (combined with VdW force) causes problems related to friction and energy dissipation.
Summary
1. Lack of rigidity, excessive stickiness of molecules (Van der Waals force), constant random interactions (Brownian motion) at the microscale of cells means mechanistic intuitions from the macroscale don't apply.
2. High surface area (combined with VdW force) causes problems related to friction and energy dissipation.
I didn't want to navigate that PDF, so I read the author's IEEE article, which I think has similar content.
What a boring criticism! All of the things he mentions are easily approachable engineering challenges. His conclusion seems to be "mechanical engineering as with gears and pulleys won't work with nanobots". Duh! No one claimed otherwise.
> mechanistic intuitions about the microscale don't apply.
Obviously. Why would you or the author think nanotechnology optimists don't know this? Half the reason we don't have nanobots is because we don't yet have the engineering expertise and practical tools for these scales. The other half is that we're still working out efficient 3D nanofabrication. They are related problems. These are not physically insurmountable issues (as demonstrated thoroughly by organic life). There are a hundred different fields of study that are slowly eating away at the edges of the general purpose nanofabrication problem.
What a boring criticism! All of the things he mentions are easily approachable engineering challenges. His conclusion seems to be "mechanical engineering as with gears and pulleys won't work with nanobots". Duh! No one claimed otherwise.
> mechanistic intuitions about the microscale don't apply.
Obviously. Why would you or the author think nanotechnology optimists don't know this? Half the reason we don't have nanobots is because we don't yet have the engineering expertise and practical tools for these scales. The other half is that we're still working out efficient 3D nanofabrication. They are related problems. These are not physically insurmountable issues (as demonstrated thoroughly by organic life). There are a hundred different fields of study that are slowly eating away at the edges of the general purpose nanofabrication problem.
> All of the things he mentions are easily approachable engineering challenges.
If they are so "easily approachable," feel free to solve them any time. I think you'll find that solving problems in living systems (let alone in the clinic) is much more challenging than it might appear from a CS/physics perspective (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Andy-Grove-fallacy?share=1).
I'm not saying it's not worth trying (it's certainly a more worthwhile endeavor than getting people to click on more ads), but that it's important to be realistic (for example, that all disease is unlikely to be cured by 2100).
If they are so "easily approachable," feel free to solve them any time. I think you'll find that solving problems in living systems (let alone in the clinic) is much more challenging than it might appear from a CS/physics perspective (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Andy-Grove-fallacy?share=1).
I'm not saying it's not worth trying (it's certainly a more worthwhile endeavor than getting people to click on more ads), but that it's important to be realistic (for example, that all disease is unlikely to be cured by 2100).
"Easily approachable" doesn't mean I can just go ahead do it. It means I can see how one would start working on it, and in fact many people are.
In fact, I am currently working in a nanotech lab, so I am hopefully helping a bit ;)
None of the problems you linked to are things that need to take a hundred years to solve. It's probably more accurate to measure development barriers in R&D costs than years. At the very least, we could just reverse engineer biology.
In fact, I am currently working in a nanotech lab, so I am hopefully helping a bit ;)
None of the problems you linked to are things that need to take a hundred years to solve. It's probably more accurate to measure development barriers in R&D costs than years. At the very least, we could just reverse engineer biology.
> I can just go ahead do it.
Doing experiments on animals (and especially humans or other vertebrates) is the exact opposite of something you can just go ahead and do. The best way to see that is to give it a go yourself.
> At the very least, we could just reverse engineer biology.
Many people in the past with a CS/physics mindset have made similar claims. If you try to work with living systems, I'm sure you'll see why these problems aren't just a matter of spending R&D dollars.
Doing experiments on animals (and especially humans or other vertebrates) is the exact opposite of something you can just go ahead and do. The best way to see that is to give it a go yourself.
> At the very least, we could just reverse engineer biology.
Many people in the past with a CS/physics mindset have made similar claims. If you try to work with living systems, I'm sure you'll see why these problems aren't just a matter of spending R&D dollars.
> If you try to work with living systems, I'm sure you'll see why these problems aren't just a matter of spending R&D dollars.
Perhaps you can explain it to me, so I can skip becoming a bio researcher.
Perhaps you can explain it to me, so I can skip becoming a bio researcher.
Some sort of high level body magic would work too, I'm thinking about some kind of general purpose blood-magic ritual.
I know optimism in and around computer tech is through the roof, but the levels of delusion on tech disruption topics in our community never ceases to amaze me.
I know optimism in and around computer tech is through the roof, but the levels of delusion on tech disruption topics in our community never ceases to amaze me.
"yes we can!" built the atomic bomb.
"Build an atomic bomb" is a lot more specific than "cure all diseases." In fact, "cure all diseases" is kind of the opposite of a SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-based). Whereas, to goal to build a device capable of detonating via nuclear fission is pretty specific, particularly to a physicist. Also very measurable and highly time-based.
Not even the Gates foundation is trying to cure all diseases, and Bill Gates is smart and gets stuff done. This sounds like feel-good charity to me, but we'll see what the results are in 100 years, I guess.
Not even the Gates foundation is trying to cure all diseases, and Bill Gates is smart and gets stuff done. This sounds like feel-good charity to me, but we'll see what the results are in 100 years, I guess.
I agree with you, but I'd like to point out that it's easy to say "x is very specific" if you know exactly what x is after-the-fact.
True, and a good point to make. My understanding of the difficulty of the atomic bomb was that everyone knew what to do (smash enriched uranium together such that was more than a certain mass), but they had a lot of difficulty getting the spherical detonation right. So the problem wasn't unknown from the physics side, but was rather an engineering problem. Compare to "cure all diseases," which we don't even know how to do theoretically.
Which is a remarkable scientific achievement, independent of its use.
Remarkable in the same way a future gray goo invention would be. And it was a military initiative, developed for military reasons.
So was the internet.
You never know if we will need that arsenal against asteroids.
You never know if we will need that arsenal against asteroids.
And from whose rocket are you going to trust launching those nukes? I'm not interested in even being in the same Hemisphere as such a launch!
And everyone knows lasers are the solution to errant asteroids. Perhaps attached to evil sharks :)
And everyone knows lasers are the solution to errant asteroids. Perhaps attached to evil sharks :)
Which is _much_ (orders of magnitude) easier than curing Cancer
Arguable. We can only compare difficulty after the fact, if Einstein hadn't rolled along with relativity and 3 decade gap for research, the atomic bomb wouldn't have been possible.
There may be a 'relativity' level discovery in biology/aging/cancer that will change the historic perspective. We can't know until after the fact.
There may be a 'relativity' level discovery in biology/aging/cancer that will change the historic perspective. We can't know until after the fact.
The difference between "yes we can!" re: the atomic bomb and Zuckerberg's post is that the former happened after the fundamental discoveries in physics that made the atomic bomb possible. By the time someone said "yes we can!" a theoretical analysis of how the bomb would work already existed.
That fundamental advancement in biology hasn't happened yet. That's the difference between rational optimism and irrational and mindless optimism.
That fundamental advancement in biology hasn't happened yet. That's the difference between rational optimism and irrational and mindless optimism.
Respectfully, I disagree.
The fundamental discoveries necessary for the nuclear bomb weren't discover until after Leo Szilard [0] proposed the weapon. Given that none of us were alive between 1906 and 1945 it's hard to fully grasp how the scientific understanding evolved over those 39 years.
Einstein's work paved the way for Leo Szilard's vision but that vision was in no way a given. If it weren't for WWII, and Einstein's support, Leo would not have been able to garner the $2 Billion (1940's money) in support that was necessary to build the bomb.
Even then, there was a coin-toss level certainty that it would do anything.
Similar to Einstein's work preceding the discovery of Fission and the Atomic bomb. We have a great deal of work in biology around aging, telomere's, transcription errors, and more that hasn't been leveraged by the medical industry for varying reasons.
I'm not ready to be a naysayer on this topic, historically as a species we've had remarkable success in accomplishing things that were considered impossible before we did them.
[0] http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Discfiss.html
The fundamental discoveries necessary for the nuclear bomb weren't discover until after Leo Szilard [0] proposed the weapon. Given that none of us were alive between 1906 and 1945 it's hard to fully grasp how the scientific understanding evolved over those 39 years.
Einstein's work paved the way for Leo Szilard's vision but that vision was in no way a given. If it weren't for WWII, and Einstein's support, Leo would not have been able to garner the $2 Billion (1940's money) in support that was necessary to build the bomb.
Even then, there was a coin-toss level certainty that it would do anything.
Similar to Einstein's work preceding the discovery of Fission and the Atomic bomb. We have a great deal of work in biology around aging, telomere's, transcription errors, and more that hasn't been leveraged by the medical industry for varying reasons.
I'm not ready to be a naysayer on this topic, historically as a species we've had remarkable success in accomplishing things that were considered impossible before we did them.
[0] http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Discfiss.html
The discovery of fission was not the product of the Manhattan Project but a continuation of research into the atomic nucleus that had been proceeding for decades. Once that happened, Einstein's theory told you that the process would release a large amount of energy, and a bomb became simply an engineering task. By the time someone wrote a check, the basic mechanism of the runaway fission reaction was understood.
That's totally different than the current situation with say cancer. In the world of physics and engineering, a "coin-toss" shot at working is actually a pretty well-developed idea. There is no ready-to-go idea you can point to and say "if we spent $20 billion building this it's have a coin-toss's chance of curing cancer."
That's totally different than the current situation with say cancer. In the world of physics and engineering, a "coin-toss" shot at working is actually a pretty well-developed idea. There is no ready-to-go idea you can point to and say "if we spent $20 billion building this it's have a coin-toss's chance of curing cancer."
I don't know where you see me stating that the discovery fission was a result of the Manhattan Project, it was a predecessor. The order of actions was: Einsteins Relativity -> Leo's Bomb Patent -> Discovery of Fission -> Manhattan Project -> Bomb.
> By the time someone wrote a check, the basic mechanism of the runaway fission reaction was understood.
I find that to be a gross simplification. I would challenge that the basic mechanisms of the fission reaction were as well understood then as we understand the basic mechanisms behind cancerous mutations now.
> There is no ready-to-go idea you can point to and say "if we spent $20 billion building this it's have a coin-toss's chance of curing cancer."
Over what time-horizon? We've achieved a great deal in the last 100 years that would have received less than a coin-toss probability if one were to be having this same argument in the early 1900s. The Haber Process [0] is a great example of something that we had no way of expecting we could accomplish (the energy efficiency aspect) before it happened.
What would you prefer Zuckerberg does with his money? I mean, he could build a massive yacht like Jobs before he died... As a species we have consistently accomplished feats that were as unlikely as the mitochondrial symbiosis that allowed us to exist in the first place, is there a reason to discount our abilities to continue this trend?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
> By the time someone wrote a check, the basic mechanism of the runaway fission reaction was understood.
I find that to be a gross simplification. I would challenge that the basic mechanisms of the fission reaction were as well understood then as we understand the basic mechanisms behind cancerous mutations now.
> There is no ready-to-go idea you can point to and say "if we spent $20 billion building this it's have a coin-toss's chance of curing cancer."
Over what time-horizon? We've achieved a great deal in the last 100 years that would have received less than a coin-toss probability if one were to be having this same argument in the early 1900s. The Haber Process [0] is a great example of something that we had no way of expecting we could accomplish (the energy efficiency aspect) before it happened.
What would you prefer Zuckerberg does with his money? I mean, he could build a massive yacht like Jobs before he died... As a species we have consistently accomplished feats that were as unlikely as the mitochondrial symbiosis that allowed us to exist in the first place, is there a reason to discount our abilities to continue this trend?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
> Over what time-horizon?
The relevant time is right now. If the U.S. government had said "yes, we can do it!" and invested $20 billion in building an atom bomb in 1915, they would've pissed that money away. It would've been mindless optimism. Doing it after fission had been discovered was a calculated investment.
The relevant time is right now. If the U.S. government had said "yes, we can do it!" and invested $20 billion in building an atom bomb in 1915, they would've pissed that money away. It would've been mindless optimism. Doing it after fission had been discovered was a calculated investment.
> Over what time-horizon? We've achieved a great deal in the last 100 years that would have received less than a coin-toss probability if one were to be having this same argument in the early 1900s. The Haber Process [0] is a great example of something that we had no way of expecting we could accomplish (the energy efficiency aspect) before it happened.
The issue is that we're quite a few "Nobel-worthy" inventions away from curing Cancer.
I mean, biologically we're not in the equivalence of 1950's physics. We're holding in 1300's physics.
I saw that someone once compared curing Cancer to landing on a moon without knowing basic Newtonian physics.
I expect that before we cure cancer, we'd have found ways to cure all "normal" diseases, have "designer babies" without side-effects, have "instant, proof-perfect medicines", etc.
I'd want his to work on those issues.
Right now it'll probably end up like Google X. A great lab, makes great prototypes, but practically get left behind by incremental technology.
The issue is that we're quite a few "Nobel-worthy" inventions away from curing Cancer.
I mean, biologically we're not in the equivalence of 1950's physics. We're holding in 1300's physics.
I saw that someone once compared curing Cancer to landing on a moon without knowing basic Newtonian physics.
I expect that before we cure cancer, we'd have found ways to cure all "normal" diseases, have "designer babies" without side-effects, have "instant, proof-perfect medicines", etc.
I'd want his to work on those issues.
Right now it'll probably end up like Google X. A great lab, makes great prototypes, but practically get left behind by incremental technology.
It wasn't a coin-toss away. The Hiroshima bomb was almost guaranteed to work.
The question if Nagasaki would work, which is why they did Trinity.
The theory was there when the Manhattan project started - it was an engineering hurdle, not a scientific one.
Manhattan Project : Curing Cancer :: Apollo : Warp Drives
The question if Nagasaki would work, which is why they did Trinity.
The theory was there when the Manhattan project started - it was an engineering hurdle, not a scientific one.
Manhattan Project : Curing Cancer :: Apollo : Warp Drives
Just amplifying and clarifying your point: Hiroshima was the first practical test of the uranium-bullet method.
Nagasaki was the second practical test of the plutonium implosion method.
Nagasaki was the second practical test of the plutonium implosion method.
I strongly disagree that you can only compare difficulty after the fact. The full class of cancers is an object of lots higher complexity than quantum mechanics. For one, you need a theory of quantum mechanics to fully predict from the details of a cell (this is not the same thing as saying cells leverage entanglement and maintain superpositions).
A population of cells is more complex than an atom as it requires more parameters to be fully specified. It is also harder to predict because there are several levels of non-linear feedback interactions within an environment that can never be fully given ahead of time. A population of cancerous cells is more complex than a population of cells because their dynamics are not stationary in time. Unlike a typical population of healthy cells, cancerous ones are able to, in effect learn and more effectively than even the immune system. Extend this to the full class of cancers to see why a simple mathematical theory of the kind we find in atomic physics is highly implausible.
As such, we have an object of higher descriptive and predictive complexity than atomic physics. Searching for this theory will take longer and is much, much more difficult in a formal sense.
A population of cells is more complex than an atom as it requires more parameters to be fully specified. It is also harder to predict because there are several levels of non-linear feedback interactions within an environment that can never be fully given ahead of time. A population of cancerous cells is more complex than a population of cells because their dynamics are not stationary in time. Unlike a typical population of healthy cells, cancerous ones are able to, in effect learn and more effectively than even the immune system. Extend this to the full class of cancers to see why a simple mathematical theory of the kind we find in atomic physics is highly implausible.
As such, we have an object of higher descriptive and predictive complexity than atomic physics. Searching for this theory will take longer and is much, much more difficult in a formal sense.
> The full class of cancers is an object of lots higher complexity than quantum mechanics.
Could you elaborate as to why you believe that?
Having worked on both biological and physical simulations the limits from a ground-up perspective are quite similar. While there are no well-understood analytic forms to describe biological systems, unlike in quantum systems, the fundamentals of the problem are the same: we can't predict things because there are too many interactions to easily model.
There is a whole world of non-traditional techniques opening up with increases in computational capacity.
Could you elaborate as to why you believe that?
Having worked on both biological and physical simulations the limits from a ground-up perspective are quite similar. While there are no well-understood analytic forms to describe biological systems, unlike in quantum systems, the fundamentals of the problem are the same: we can't predict things because there are too many interactions to easily model.
There is a whole world of non-traditional techniques opening up with increases in computational capacity.
You see the problem yourself by pointing out the required increase in computational capacity. Quantum mechanics can be described and predicted using fairly straight forward mathematics. Its descriptive complexity is lower than for a cancer whose functioning is a non-linear dynamical system not at thermodynamic equilibrium and changes in time. It's true that for QM, the computational complexity quickly goes up beyond toy harmonic oscillator problems but in a search for a theory, the descriptive complexity and number of fundamental parameters per observation is what controls search time.
We also don't know to what extent quantum computation would aid predictive modeling of protein interactions. It's possible that there are no leaks at the classical level of abstraction as to hurt predictability. But the problem still remains that experiments to fix parameters are hurt by the fact that the system is changing under you and interacts in a complex way with its environment which can't be known ahead of time. So the computational complexity is not necessarily easier (in a practical sense) even if we assume that there is no utility in modeling quantum effects.
One very theoretical idea of solving cancer (per cancer) would involve searching for a 'problem', an insult, outside of the learnability class of evolution which also does not harm healthy cells. This is computationally likely harder than BQP. Anything less, even if equipped with a quantum computer, would be evolved out of and with any survivors less attackable. Any way you look at it, it is a far harder problem than working out fission.
We also don't know to what extent quantum computation would aid predictive modeling of protein interactions. It's possible that there are no leaks at the classical level of abstraction as to hurt predictability. But the problem still remains that experiments to fix parameters are hurt by the fact that the system is changing under you and interacts in a complex way with its environment which can't be known ahead of time. So the computational complexity is not necessarily easier (in a practical sense) even if we assume that there is no utility in modeling quantum effects.
One very theoretical idea of solving cancer (per cancer) would involve searching for a 'problem', an insult, outside of the learnability class of evolution which also does not harm healthy cells. This is computationally likely harder than BQP. Anything less, even if equipped with a quantum computer, would be evolved out of and with any survivors less attackable. Any way you look at it, it is a far harder problem than working out fission.
Just from a data volume perspective cancer and atomic bombs are magnitudes apart. Throw in the fact that cancer evolves and understanding those mutations requires unraveling millions of years of evolution and you've got a doozy.
I strongly believe that our analytic capabilities (as a species) have grown by orders of magnitude since we built the bomb.
My entire point was that the bomb wasn't a given in it's day (in spite of what the retrospective belief seems to be), just because something is out of our grasp now doesn't mean we won't reach it if we try.
My entire point was that the bomb wasn't a given in it's day (in spite of what the retrospective belief seems to be), just because something is out of our grasp now doesn't mean we won't reach it if we try.
Reading your comments it really seems like smart and knowledgeable people are trying to make substantive arguments replies and you're answering with woo-woo. You should probably listen more. I've learned a lot from reading them.
[deleted]
You don't need Einstein or relativity theory to build an atomic bomb. Experimentalists discovered fission, and could have built a bomb even if there were no theoretical basis for it.
You are 100% correct about what could have been. However, the reality is that Einstein's work paved the way for Leo Szilard to envision an atomic bomb before fission had been discovered.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Discfiss.html
Edit: Reflecting on this, without quantum mechanics (which stemmed from Einstein's relativity work), Oppenheimer would not have had the mathematical tools that were heavily leveraged building the bomb. The bomb is more than throwing together two sub-critical pieces of material, knowledge from quantum mechanics was critical in the prediction of which fissile materials could yield a functional weapon (of which there are very few).
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Discfiss.html
Edit: Reflecting on this, without quantum mechanics (which stemmed from Einstein's relativity work), Oppenheimer would not have had the mathematical tools that were heavily leveraged building the bomb. The bomb is more than throwing together two sub-critical pieces of material, knowledge from quantum mechanics was critical in the prediction of which fissile materials could yield a functional weapon (of which there are very few).
[deleted]
I think he might be an HN user...
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/manhattan_project.png
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/manhattan_project.png
Only by turning almost 10% OF AN ENTIRE COUNTRY into doing nothing but producing an atomic bomb.
That's not 2 billion dollars, that's 2 TRILLION dollars.
So, basically, redirecting the US military budget. I approve.
That's not 2 billion dollars, that's 2 TRILLION dollars.
So, basically, redirecting the US military budget. I approve.
Source? Estimates I see for the Manhattan Project from a quick google range from .25% to .41% of GDP.
[0] https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34645.pdf
[1] http://mitchellhowe.blogspot.com/2006/02/want-manhattan-proj...
[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.09054.pdf
[0] https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34645.pdf
[1] http://mitchellhowe.blogspot.com/2006/02/want-manhattan-proj...
[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.09054.pdf
He's likely thinking of the urban myth that over 10% of the US's power generation was used for the Manhattan Project [1] and confusing it with the cost of the project, for which estimates vary but is around $2 billion total (1945 GDP was $2 trillion).
[1] http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR11/Session/H13.4
[1] http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR11/Session/H13.4
I'm also referring to the fact that estimates put in that almost 1 in 11 people in the US were involved in some facet of atomic bomb development.
The point being that atomic bomb development required a gigantic commitment.
The point being that atomic bomb development required a gigantic commitment.
> That's not 2 billion dollars
The Manhattan project cost about $2B in 1940s money; equivalent to around $26B today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
The Manhattan project cost about $2B in 1940s money; equivalent to around $26B today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
Blowing stuff up is usually easier than fixing stuff. Do we have cold fusion yet (not Macromedia :)? Do we have fusion reactors yet? In fact, we seem to be slowly losing ability to have any use of nuclear energy except blowing stuff up - it's next to impossible to get a new nuclear plant built, and old ones are being closed down. By the same 2100 we may have the atomic bomb as the only way to use nuclear energy we have. And still no fusion.
"Yes we can!" built everything, whether it's good or bad, large or small.
Mark ("and Priscilla") are pledging $3B.
The Manhattan project cost was "about $26 billion in 2016 dollars" according to the Wikipedia article. They are short $23B.
The Manhattan project cost was "about $26 billion in 2016 dollars" according to the Wikipedia article. They are short $23B.
That a quarter bill.
Do you have a E=MC2 sort of revelation in regards to cancer?
How did we miss this universal cure sitting right under our nose!
I'm the opposite, I always roll my eyes when doctors say that AI/ML will never replace human doctors, or at least that it can never replace their human intuition or empathy. Human intuition is exactly what will be superseded by machine learning. I know empathy is important, and I read something about lonely people being less likely to have a fast recovery, but it just isn't all that important for accurate diagnoses or treatment.
Further reading from Vinod Khosla: http://fortune.com/2012/12/04/technology-will-replace-80-of-...
Further reading from Vinod Khosla: http://fortune.com/2012/12/04/technology-will-replace-80-of-...
So, I think the interesting question is--take them at their word, and what do we then do with the resulting population explosion?
It's kinda like efforts to modernize (read: give Western lifestyles to) a lot of South Asia and Africa...a lot of pollution and ecological destruction that is probably not a good thing.
It's kinda like efforts to modernize (read: give Western lifestyles to) a lot of South Asia and Africa...a lot of pollution and ecological destruction that is probably not a good thing.
Given low birth rates in developed countries I'm not sure that the population explosion would sustain itself if the area was properly governed.
cancers are not broad, yes the areas of the human body they affect..yes that is broad..
Mark was reacting to this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994798/
Mark was reacting to this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994798/
" For antisocial personality disorder? For obesity and addiction?"
If we have a hypothetical scheme to find out all drugs that can be found, and see that the cure for those is not there, that is as a conclusive contribution into finding cure to those ailments as finding a cure. Most biggest discoveries are not about going on a beeline to a solution as a race. Rather, one is charting an unknown territory. As the unknown part shrinks, one does not need to spend energy in stumbling there and concentrate on other areas, finally reaching a solution (if a solution can be found).
If we have a hypothetical scheme to find out all drugs that can be found, and see that the cure for those is not there, that is as a conclusive contribution into finding cure to those ailments as finding a cure. Most biggest discoveries are not about going on a beeline to a solution as a race. Rather, one is charting an unknown territory. As the unknown part shrinks, one does not need to spend energy in stumbling there and concentrate on other areas, finally reaching a solution (if a solution can be found).
It's better to be optimistic and try than pessimistic and do nothing
Reminds me of this episode of The Outer Limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Breed_(The_Outer_Limit...
TLDR:
"Andy later discovers that he has pelvic cancer, and has approximately one year to live if the hip and leg are not removed. In desperation he sneaks into Stephen's lab and injects himself with the nanobots" ... "The nanobots continue making "improvements" to Andy, including giving him eyes in the back of his head, bones above his stomach, keen hearing, and jellyfish-like stinging tentacles on his skin."
TLDR:
"Andy later discovers that he has pelvic cancer, and has approximately one year to live if the hip and leg are not removed. In desperation he sneaks into Stephen's lab and injects himself with the nanobots" ... "The nanobots continue making "improvements" to Andy, including giving him eyes in the back of his head, bones above his stomach, keen hearing, and jellyfish-like stinging tentacles on his skin."
Probably not feasible without some genetic re-engineering to design out vulnerabilities to common diseases. That's how aging will probably be solved. There's a big debug time problem, though. It takes about two generations to be sure you got it right. We'll probably have very long lived mice decades before it works for humans. (Many cancers in mice can be cured now. This doesn't translate to humans.)
Then there will be species conflicts. Merck people won't be able to mate with Novartis people because they'll be too different genetically.
Then there will be species conflicts. Merck people won't be able to mate with Novartis people because they'll be too different genetically.
> Then there will be species conflicts. Merck people won't be able to mate with Novartis people because they'll be too different genetically.
I don't think this will be a problem if you get to the point of genetically engineering people. You just can't mate the old fashioned way, but if anything that's a benefit- free birth control. IVF + genetic modification of the egg cell, assuming your technology is that advanced, should be the easy solution.
I don't think this will be a problem if you get to the point of genetically engineering people. You just can't mate the old fashioned way, but if anything that's a benefit- free birth control. IVF + genetic modification of the egg cell, assuming your technology is that advanced, should be the easy solution.
[deleted]
> Merck people won't be able to mate with Novartis people
I think I'll stick with cancer for now
I think I'll stick with cancer for now
> That's how aging will probably be solved
I read in some article of the Google equivalent version of this, Calico, that even if you cure all of cancer the average life expectancy will probably only increase by ~5 years (off the top of my head, can't find link).
I read in some article of the Google equivalent version of this, Calico, that even if you cure all of cancer the average life expectancy will probably only increase by ~5 years (off the top of my head, can't find link).
Will that speciation be driven by genetics or licensing terms?
CRISPR is quite promising.
This is difficult to say without sounding snarky, but will 'all disease' include the mental disorders (both discovered and undiscovered) that Facebook inflicts upon its users? Depression from seeing other people's perfect lives, obsessive compulsive dopamine-fueled update checking to maximize Zuck's ad revenue etc.
I'm glad he's spending his money this way but how about the way he makes it. Facebook is not a particularly benign product and when you throw in the rising privacy, censorship, and "Free Basics" concerns, I would argue it's creeping towards having a net negative impact on the world.
I would have much more respect for Zuckerberg if he took a profit hit to fix his product and how his company interacts with the world. It's worth noting that Bill stepped away from Microsoft before he got deeply into philanthropy, in part to avoid conflict of interest. He knew he had a checkered past and he made a break with it. Zuck has a checkered present. Curing diseases in the developing world while pushing your product on it at the same time is somewhat morally ambiguous in my view.
I'm glad he's spending his money this way but how about the way he makes it. Facebook is not a particularly benign product and when you throw in the rising privacy, censorship, and "Free Basics" concerns, I would argue it's creeping towards having a net negative impact on the world.
I would have much more respect for Zuckerberg if he took a profit hit to fix his product and how his company interacts with the world. It's worth noting that Bill stepped away from Microsoft before he got deeply into philanthropy, in part to avoid conflict of interest. He knew he had a checkered past and he made a break with it. Zuck has a checkered present. Curing diseases in the developing world while pushing your product on it at the same time is somewhat morally ambiguous in my view.
I'm pretty sure the majority of people disagree with you on the value of Facebook. I know I do. I certainly disagree with the claim that Facebook "inflicts" mental disorders on its users.
So I'm not sure how you expect Mark Zuckerberg to "fix" a problem with his product that he probably doesn't think exists.
And may I add that, if every time someone decides to donate money to charity, people "beat up" on them, it's a pretty big disincentive to donate to charity.
So I'm not sure how you expect Mark Zuckerberg to "fix" a problem with his product that he probably doesn't think exists.
And may I add that, if every time someone decides to donate money to charity, people "beat up" on them, it's a pretty big disincentive to donate to charity.
You're seriously equating looking at someone's photos with catching HIV, Ebola or developing cancer? Pathetic.
No, I'm not.
Do you always assume that people who have differing opinions from yours must be heartless monsters and insult them? That must be a serious impediment to constructive discussion.
To put my point succinctly Zuckerberg hasn't demonstrated a great deal of social responsibility in running his business. There are problems much closer to his influence (literally caused by his product) which he doesn't even discuss in public, let alone try to solve. So when he announces he and his wife are going to effectively end the greatest cause of human suffering, some skepticism about his motives is totally legitimate. For instance, what strings will be attached to the receipt of this money?
Do you always assume that people who have differing opinions from yours must be heartless monsters and insult them? That must be a serious impediment to constructive discussion.
To put my point succinctly Zuckerberg hasn't demonstrated a great deal of social responsibility in running his business. There are problems much closer to his influence (literally caused by his product) which he doesn't even discuss in public, let alone try to solve. So when he announces he and his wife are going to effectively end the greatest cause of human suffering, some skepticism about his motives is totally legitimate. For instance, what strings will be attached to the receipt of this money?
The guy's running a business. He has a responsibility to his shareholders to make it as valuable as he can. Sticky apps/web sites lead to more ad impressions and higher prices. His business does not give people cancer or HIV.
You may find life more rewarding to assume people are good and try to see the best in people. As Dale Carnegie says in How to Win Friends and Influence People, if you assume the best in people and encourage them, they're more likely to want to live up to that image.
You may find life more rewarding to assume people are good and try to see the best in people. As Dale Carnegie says in How to Win Friends and Influence People, if you assume the best in people and encourage them, they're more likely to want to live up to that image.
Capitalism's an economic system, not a moral one. He's got his responsibility to make money at any cost. Civic society has its responsibility to draw a line past which the cost is too high. History makes it clear that "assuming the best" about the actions of the rich and powerful hardly keeps them accountable.
and yet you do the exact opposite - you label the guy pathetic simply because he has a viewpoint that is different to yours.
The opinion, not the OP. I'm sure he/she is a fine individual.
I agree, social media is creating new social disorders and providing a platform for people to knowingly or unknowingly destroy their lives. Facebook enables people to display a very skewed version of reality and enough of that in someone's social circle leads to feelings of failure, unworthiness, depression, rejection etc. So whilst this is not a disease to be cured, it is still a health issue.
I'll take some depression* if I can avoid cancer. I'm much more confident in my ability to beat depression than cancer.
(*) Not to be confused with depressive disorder, a clinical condition that Facebook cannot create on its own.
(*) Not to be confused with depressive disorder, a clinical condition that Facebook cannot create on its own.
Pharmacology is an interesting example where better technology and scientific understanding have made things worse than earlier, low-tech methods ("inject plant extracts into animals and see what happens").
The number of new drugs discovered per dollar of research has been dropping since 1960, and obvious explanations (like "the easy ones have already been found") turn out not to explain the phenomenon. [http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v11/n3/fig_tab/nrd3681_F1....]
This is something we should try to understand better, since it goes against the intuition that technology is an unalloyed good in scientific research.
I applaud the money they're spending, but the level of technophilia in the announcement gives me pause.
The number of new drugs discovered per dollar of research has been dropping since 1960, and obvious explanations (like "the easy ones have already been found") turn out not to explain the phenomenon. [http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v11/n3/fig_tab/nrd3681_F1....]
This is something we should try to understand better, since it goes against the intuition that technology is an unalloyed good in scientific research.
I applaud the money they're spending, but the level of technophilia in the announcement gives me pause.
I can't speak for the past, but I think the big deal for the testing of the future will be shifting from "forty percent of the test subjects responded positively to the drug; none of the side effects were that bad" to "80% of test subjects carrying thought-to-be-marginally-relevant gene Y showed positive responses to the drug but none carrying gene Yvariant; those also carrying not-suspected-of-be-relevant gene X exhibited much stronger side effects"
That should make initial testing a lot more expensive, but in the long run launches of new drugs less risky.
That should make initial testing a lot more expensive, but in the long run launches of new drugs less risky.
I've been thinking along these lines recently; we currently design treatment plans using statistical methods, i.e. averaging effects across 'representative populations'. But imagine if you took your car to the garage and they said "90% of cars showing this symptom respond well to this treatment".
When we truly understand how these biological systems work (which could be more than 100 years from now) we'll be able to measure what is different from the individual's baseline, rather than extrapolating based population averages.
When we truly understand how these biological systems work (which could be more than 100 years from now) we'll be able to measure what is different from the individual's baseline, rather than extrapolating based population averages.
And even farther in the long run make it possible to virtually test therapies against arbitrary genetic information.
If this initiative funds studies on non-profitable treatments (fasting, nutrition) or counter balance industry backed lobbying, they will earn my respect. But if its to dump money on AI, yes its just sad. Google and Facebook AI can't fight the most basic spam. Seeing the same tools curing cancer even in the long run is a little bit far fetched ...
Returns on R&D have been falling across a wide range of disciplines for a long time. Joseph Tainter references work by several other authors, looking at patents and Nobel Prize awards. J. Doyne Farmer and the late John C. Holland both work in the are of technological innovation as well.
I'm not convinced technology and understanding are the causal factors here.
I'm not convinced technology and understanding are the causal factors here.
Apparently that paper coined Eroom's Law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroom%27s_Law
the 'better than the Beatles' problem is at least superficially compelling. When Benadryl was discovered, the bar for allergy drugs was pretty low. Today you have to improve on drugs that have several advantages over Benadryl (and cost ~$0.50 a day OTC in the US).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroom%27s_Law
the 'better than the Beatles' problem is at least superficially compelling. When Benadryl was discovered, the bar for allergy drugs was pretty low. Today you have to improve on drugs that have several advantages over Benadryl (and cost ~$0.50 a day OTC in the US).
All disease with $3bn? https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget
3bn is, one assumed, being used as leverage rather than a primary mover.
If you have matching donations or can kickstart an otherwise self-sustaining process, the end-to-end cost doesn't have to add up to 3bn to be feasible with a 3bn pool of initial capital.
Think of it as venture research.
If you have matching donations or can kickstart an otherwise self-sustaining process, the end-to-end cost doesn't have to add up to 3bn to be feasible with a 3bn pool of initial capital.
Think of it as venture research.
> If you have matching donations or can kickstart an otherwise self-sustaining process
They won't have been the first people funding research to have thought of this... it's a criteria sometimes used in evaluating in NIH grants, for instance.
> Think of it as venture research
As opposed to?
They won't have been the first people funding research to have thought of this... it's a criteria sometimes used in evaluating in NIH grants, for instance.
> Think of it as venture research
As opposed to?
As opposed to more standard research funding which isn't as goal oriented.
I assume they're looking for a "billion dollar exit" from their research funding.
I assume they're looking for a "billion dollar exit" from their research funding.
Overemphasis on commercialization is a common complaint of the current funding situation in medical research, so I don't think we're failing for lack of interest in commercial exits. In fact, many scientist are serial entrepreneurs.
Moreover, many discoveries that went on to make a lot of people a lot of money had no obvious commercial application when they were first being researched... Predicting future markets is hard.
Moreover, many discoveries that went on to make a lot of people a lot of money had no obvious commercial application when they were first being researched... Predicting future markets is hard.
No I don't mean "made money", that would just be standard venture capital.
I mean "achieves their targets by reducing the total burden of disease on humanity", which is a different radical exit.
I mean "achieves their targets by reducing the total burden of disease on humanity", which is a different radical exit.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean by "achieves their targets by reducing the total burden of disease on humanity". Or maybe I just don't understand the difference between this as merely "achieves their targets by selling useful treatments to people"?
Could to elaborate?
Could to elaborate?
A malaria vaccine would make no commercial sense but would be a huge reduction in the total burden of disease. That's what I mean.
[deleted]
Baldness receives a disproportionate amount of funding when compared to serious diseases. Why? If it's cured someone is going to make a whole ton of money. A quick Google to back up my claim yielded this article[1]. $2bn/y on hair loss, $1bn on HIV, $547m/y on malaria. Contrary to my point I do find the HIV funding interesting: further funding for HIV and an HIV vaccine (as mentioned in the article) is a dreadful route for making money. Just think of all the money that could have been made from a life-long smallpox treatment had we not eradicated it.
I'm not saying that I support that line of thinking, there's just a fair amount of evidence suggesting that this is how funding is allocated in practice.
Throwing down $3bn to "cure disease" is very different from throwing down $3bn to "cure things that are easily taken to market." I'm not sure if Zuckerberg and Chan are taking the former more philanthropic route, but all diseases do not currently receive the same amount of monetary attention.
[1]: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bill-gates-...
I'm not saying that I support that line of thinking, there's just a fair amount of evidence suggesting that this is how funding is allocated in practice.
Throwing down $3bn to "cure disease" is very different from throwing down $3bn to "cure things that are easily taken to market." I'm not sure if Zuckerberg and Chan are taking the former more philanthropic route, but all diseases do not currently receive the same amount of monetary attention.
[1]: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bill-gates-...
Why would an 80+ year project receive all of its funding on the first day?
$3bn/day isn't a bad estimate to cure all diseases.
Not to take the wind out of anyone's sails, but there is a concern to be raised about relying more and more on charities to fund the public good. When a democratically elected government funds the public good, at least in theory, the public at large has a small say in choosing what counts as "public good". When you leave it to charity, you're relying on the morals of individual wealthy donors to decide what counts as a "public good". I don't claim to know which method is more risky in terms of mis-allocation of resources, but it's something to think about.
As someone has already pointed out the NIH's budget is $31 billion dollars a year, for example, so we are still spending a lot of public money, for example.
I really don't understand your worry. I'd like to see more public and private money put to work.
I really don't understand your worry. I'd like to see more public and private money put to work.
The super rich have been doing this sort of thing at least since the robber baron era. Government funding of research went up dramatically anyway
Why do you assume that government politicians and bureaucrats have a higher moral position to decide what counts as public good?
[deleted]
Yes, exactly. Unless everyone has some skin in the game, the research will be biased towards curing those with money, perhaps using the rest as guinea pigs.
How is this true of the Gates Foundation? Or Good Ventures? Chan Zuckerberg is specifically aimed at improving equality. Do you have any actual examples of wealthy philanthropists using "the rest of us" as guinea pigs to cure themselves of disease?
ryandrake's point is an important one, but I don't think this level of cynicism is justified.
ryandrake's point is an important one, but I don't think this level of cynicism is justified.
> Chan Zuckerberg is specifically aimed at improving equality.
Do you really believe this? They are doing so using a private company. The Gates foundation, for all their hubris, are at least a foundation and a nonprofit.
I hope the pitchforks come out against Chan Zuckerberg.
They are doing everything possible to build exactly the opposite kind of world that they claim to promote.
I always hope the smart people of HN can see through this. But I guess the folks here are too smitten by wealth to care.
Do you really believe this? They are doing so using a private company. The Gates foundation, for all their hubris, are at least a foundation and a nonprofit.
I hope the pitchforks come out against Chan Zuckerberg.
They are doing everything possible to build exactly the opposite kind of world that they claim to promote.
I always hope the smart people of HN can see through this. But I guess the folks here are too smitten by wealth to care.
> Do you really believe this? They are doing so using a private company.
Do you have to be a non-profit to do good?
> I hope the pitchforks come out against Chan Zuckerberg. They are doing everything possible to build exactly the opposite kind of world that they claim to promote.
I don't know enough specifics about Chan Zuckerberg to respond to this. Sounds like I need to do some more reading, are there any particular resources you've found useful?
Do you have to be a non-profit to do good?
> I hope the pitchforks come out against Chan Zuckerberg. They are doing everything possible to build exactly the opposite kind of world that they claim to promote.
I don't know enough specifics about Chan Zuckerberg to respond to this. Sounds like I need to do some more reading, are there any particular resources you've found useful?
> Do you have any actual examples of wealthy philanthropists using "the rest of us" as guinea pigs to cure themselves of disease?
Peter Thiel wants to make himself ageless and immortal by injecting himself with the blood of the young. How's that?
Peter Thiel wants to make himself ageless and immortal by injecting himself with the blood of the young. How's that?
I hadn't heard about that before, thanks for sharing it. The idea makes for a comically evil headline, but it isn't obvious to me that the concept is necessarily nefarious or exploitative. It seems very similar to the blood transfusions we already do today to stop people from dying.
Saw this on Reddit, maybe someone can comment:
---
From Wikipedia:
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is not a charitable trust or a private foundation but a limited liability company which can be for-profit, spend money on lobbying, make political donations, will not have to disclose its pay to its top five executives and have fewer other transparency requirements, compared to a charitable trust. Under this legal structure, as Forbes wrote it, "Zuckerberg will still control the Facebook shares owned by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative".
---
From Wikipedia:
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is not a charitable trust or a private foundation but a limited liability company which can be for-profit, spend money on lobbying, make political donations, will not have to disclose its pay to its top five executives and have fewer other transparency requirements, compared to a charitable trust. Under this legal structure, as Forbes wrote it, "Zuckerberg will still control the Facebook shares owned by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative".
First, so we are on the same page: An LLC and "a non profit" are two orthogonal things. "Non-profit" is a tax status granted to any entity recognized by the IRS, an LLC is a state construct, not recognized by the IRS.
LLCs exist in the court system - they can be liable for things done under the legal umbrella of the LLC, meaning they be sued, and so on. This is the "Limited Liability" part; the members of an LLC are, for some things, not personally liable for any legal trouble. LLCs do not exist, as far as the IRS is concerned.
Because of this, an organization can be an LLC in it's local state, registered as a corporation of some kind with the federal gov't - and that corporation can be Non-Profit; eg; an LLC can be Non-Profit, and nothing can be "a" Non-Profit, because Non-Profit is not an entity, it's a tax status.
So.
You are Mark Zuckerberg. You hold a lot of Facebook stock, and you want to commit that stock to Philantropy. Cool. You could start a federal corporation (which would be recognized by the IRS) and file for Non Profit status.
But why would you? You're not accepting other peoples donations, so you don't need to help them make tax-deductible donations. Your money, "moved into" the LLC, still goes on your personal taxes (remember, the IRS does not care that your state has invented some court construct called an LLC - unless you're a federal corporation, your money goes on your regular tax return), meaning any donations made to, say, a Non-profit research fund, will be tax deductible just like it would any other day, so you don't loose out on any taxes.
Creating a Non-Profit of some kind would mean a lot of legal work, a lot of complexity in terms of how this new federal entity uses it's $3B Facebook stock to vote, if you set up as a foundation there are rules around holding too much stock in individual companies, et cetera et cetera. TL;DR: There's a lot of downside and the only upside is that some guy on Reddit would whine about how you're a fraud in some other way.
If I wanted to set aside $3B of my personal stock and tell the world "I'm gonna donate this money, over time", I don't see why I wouldn't just pay the $50 filing fee to get some legal distance from lawsuits in the form of an LLC and call it a day.
Edit: I should say that this is a short-term perspective. I would expect, as Mark grows older, he may want to move this money into an actual non-profit entity of some kind, with a board and so on that could oversee the management and dispersement of the money over the long haul, or whatever. But in the short term, it just seems like a lot of legalese for no benefit.
LLCs exist in the court system - they can be liable for things done under the legal umbrella of the LLC, meaning they be sued, and so on. This is the "Limited Liability" part; the members of an LLC are, for some things, not personally liable for any legal trouble. LLCs do not exist, as far as the IRS is concerned.
Because of this, an organization can be an LLC in it's local state, registered as a corporation of some kind with the federal gov't - and that corporation can be Non-Profit; eg; an LLC can be Non-Profit, and nothing can be "a" Non-Profit, because Non-Profit is not an entity, it's a tax status.
So.
You are Mark Zuckerberg. You hold a lot of Facebook stock, and you want to commit that stock to Philantropy. Cool. You could start a federal corporation (which would be recognized by the IRS) and file for Non Profit status.
But why would you? You're not accepting other peoples donations, so you don't need to help them make tax-deductible donations. Your money, "moved into" the LLC, still goes on your personal taxes (remember, the IRS does not care that your state has invented some court construct called an LLC - unless you're a federal corporation, your money goes on your regular tax return), meaning any donations made to, say, a Non-profit research fund, will be tax deductible just like it would any other day, so you don't loose out on any taxes.
Creating a Non-Profit of some kind would mean a lot of legal work, a lot of complexity in terms of how this new federal entity uses it's $3B Facebook stock to vote, if you set up as a foundation there are rules around holding too much stock in individual companies, et cetera et cetera. TL;DR: There's a lot of downside and the only upside is that some guy on Reddit would whine about how you're a fraud in some other way.
If I wanted to set aside $3B of my personal stock and tell the world "I'm gonna donate this money, over time", I don't see why I wouldn't just pay the $50 filing fee to get some legal distance from lawsuits in the form of an LLC and call it a day.
Edit: I should say that this is a short-term perspective. I would expect, as Mark grows older, he may want to move this money into an actual non-profit entity of some kind, with a board and so on that could oversee the management and dispersement of the money over the long haul, or whatever. But in the short term, it just seems like a lot of legalese for no benefit.
I know it's more of a western problem, but it would be good if someone could find some real solutions to the obesity crisis.
If you ask many GPs in the west they will tell you that a majority of illnesses they address are related to weight and diet. With an aging, increasingly overweight adult population alongside a sharp rise in child obesity come big consequences for health care over the next half century.
Im not saying its an easy task you can just throw money at, but if trends continue as they are now the health and economic impact on society will be huge.
Bar some sort of national catastrophe (for e.g. war, famine, disease) is it a crazy idea to think we could see a reduction in obesity levels? Are we simply resigned to the fact that we will just get bigger and bigger in the future?
If you ask many GPs in the west they will tell you that a majority of illnesses they address are related to weight and diet. With an aging, increasingly overweight adult population alongside a sharp rise in child obesity come big consequences for health care over the next half century.
Im not saying its an easy task you can just throw money at, but if trends continue as they are now the health and economic impact on society will be huge.
Bar some sort of national catastrophe (for e.g. war, famine, disease) is it a crazy idea to think we could see a reduction in obesity levels? Are we simply resigned to the fact that we will just get bigger and bigger in the future?
People often think it's just because the food is there in abundance. But it was there even before! But obesity is still rising. And poor people are fatter than the rich.
I'd say it's a mix of specifically engineered flavor additives, advertisement, marketing and product placement and similar things.
But the usual approach is that people are simply stupid and it's their own fault so there's no problem. Anything the food industry does is simply the beautiful free market at work, and it's every citizen's duty to see through it all and choose a healthy lifestyle despite all the crap thrown in their face every waking hour.
Fat people are great business. They eat a lot (so they can be sold food), they stay at home a lot (so they can be sold entertainment and shown TV ads), they become sick (so they can be sold medicine) etc.
I'd say it's a mix of specifically engineered flavor additives, advertisement, marketing and product placement and similar things.
But the usual approach is that people are simply stupid and it's their own fault so there's no problem. Anything the food industry does is simply the beautiful free market at work, and it's every citizen's duty to see through it all and choose a healthy lifestyle despite all the crap thrown in their face every waking hour.
Fat people are great business. They eat a lot (so they can be sold food), they stay at home a lot (so they can be sold entertainment and shown TV ads), they become sick (so they can be sold medicine) etc.
It's a political problem. Tax sugar and junk food heavily and the problem will solve itself over time.
There is a technical solution to obesity - automatic calorie counter. There are some attempts, but they are not very accurate yet.
For starter, stop drinking liters of cold drink and beer every day. If you really need it, I will create an app for that.
roadnottaken(4)
"Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan announce $3 billion initiative to ‘cure all diseases’"
http://venturebeat.com/2016/09/21/mark-zuckerberg-and-prisci...
http://venturebeat.com/2016/09/21/mark-zuckerberg-and-prisci...
I suspect it would have been much better for them to simply partner with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, where they're actually curing diseases. They've literally almost eradicated polio globally[1].
[1] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Polio> I suspect it would have been much better for them to simply partner with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Based on what? The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has plenty of money. Better for the Zuckerbergs to focus on other areas.
Based on what? The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has plenty of money. Better for the Zuckerbergs to focus on other areas.
Based on the Gates foundation's existing accomplishments on eradicating diseases, of which Malaria and Polio are shining examples.
While we've had Polio vaccines and Malaria pills for years in much of the western world, much of the poorer parts of the world aren't so lucky. So instead of duplicating something that already exists and works well, partner with them and get it done faster together.
References:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Health/Negl...
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development...
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Health/Mala...
While we've had Polio vaccines and Malaria pills for years in much of the western world, much of the poorer parts of the world aren't so lucky. So instead of duplicating something that already exists and works well, partner with them and get it done faster together.
References:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Health/Negl...
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development...
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Health/Mala...
It's possible for them to work together through open research and collaborative efforts, if their work ends up crossing paths.
But it's not clear there's any reason or benefit for them to be under the same central organization.
Plus they will be greatly incentived when working under their own label 'Chan Zuckerberg Institute' to make their own lasting impact on the world. Just pumping more cash into Bill Gates existing project isn't a very exciting driver. And motivation/morale is important with any big project.
But it's not clear there's any reason or benefit for them to be under the same central organization.
Plus they will be greatly incentived when working under their own label 'Chan Zuckerberg Institute' to make their own lasting impact on the world. Just pumping more cash into Bill Gates existing project isn't a very exciting driver. And motivation/morale is important with any big project.
They aren't duplicate efforts. You keep missing that point.
"Cure all diseases" is a bit hand wavy just like a static code analyzer claiming to "find all software defects".
What is the point that I'm missing? They don't really want to cure all diseases?
What is the point that I'm missing? They don't really want to cure all diseases?
Hey, Bill Gates is pretty excited. Maybe you could tweet him and ask him what you don't get?
“Thank you mark, it’s an honour to join you all after this incredible milestone. The Chan Zuckerberg initiative is already doing some very promising work in terms of improving education for all students (and so) that is a really thrilling thing.
And it is amazing that today they are taking on another bold challenge, this idea of curing and preventing all diseases by the end of the century. That’s very bold very ambitious, and I can’t think of a better partnership to take it on,” Bill Gates said.
“Thank you mark, it’s an honour to join you all after this incredible milestone. The Chan Zuckerberg initiative is already doing some very promising work in terms of improving education for all students (and so) that is a really thrilling thing.
And it is amazing that today they are taking on another bold challenge, this idea of curing and preventing all diseases by the end of the century. That’s very bold very ambitious, and I can’t think of a better partnership to take it on,” Bill Gates said.
Well honestly that's a much easier task. Polio is a solved problem. The vaccine has existed for decades. It's just a matter of money to get it out to enough people.
Curing "all" disease is a bit more ambitious.
Not to say that in the end, Gates isn't helping more people today.
Curing "all" disease is a bit more ambitious.
Not to say that in the end, Gates isn't helping more people today.
And Bill just walked onto the stage :)
Largely by funding the effort.
http://www.polioeradication.org/Portals/0/Document/Financing...
Which I don't mean as a criticism, it's just that they aren't really driving the effort, they are participating by providing a lot of resources.
http://www.polioeradication.org/Portals/0/Document/Financing...
Which I don't mean as a criticism, it's just that they aren't really driving the effort, they are participating by providing a lot of resources.
[deleted]
Based on that link, the Gates foundation is providing $2.86 billion. The second biggest donor is the US Government at $2.64 billion.
I'd consider the entity with the most money in the game as the driver of really anything.
I'd consider the entity with the most money in the game as the driver of really anything.
Did you know that the vaccine for polio has existed for decades.
I did. Did you know that much of Africa didn't have access to said vaccine due to funding shortages? This was one of the efforts where the Gates foundation literally just threw money at the problem until it went away.
Sure, I know that. The point of the new effort is trying to cure diseases. That's a completely different type of effort. Getting people together to travel to different parts of the world to make sure people are vaccinated, for example, requires a different group of people than scientists researching cures for diseases.
Both groups are needed, of course. But you giving the example of "curing" polio as an example of what the Chan Zuckerberg foundation is trying to accomplish is inaccurate.
Both groups are needed, of course. But you giving the example of "curing" polio as an example of what the Chan Zuckerberg foundation is trying to accomplish is inaccurate.
Ah I see the semantics of your argument and you're right.
I just think other than the prestige argument (which is likely what this is) they could actually do more work working with someone who literally spends more on this than the entire USG.
I just think other than the prestige argument (which is likely what this is) they could actually do more work working with someone who literally spends more on this than the entire USG.
[deleted]
For a point of reference, NIH's annual budge is about $31 billion.
On the other hand, UK funded medical research is only about £500m a year. $3bn is a significant amount of money, and there's also potential that it could be spent in very targeted ways, or to pursue goals which might not get funded elsewhere. Seems like a very interesting project.
True, in particular, it would be great to see an organization like this help scientific software development and distribution, which something incredibly useful that is hard to fund through NIH (not sure about elsewhere).
Funding open source scientific software is a huge part of what the NIH does!
Unfortunately there isn't a requirement that the code developed under grants is released as open source, but there is a lot of movement to make it so. Furthermore, researchers have strong incentives to provide reusable software implementations of their research. (I know many people say the incentives run against this, but it is now clear that useful software gets more citations and scientists forget so at their own risk!)
I don't have a recent budget handy, but at least 10% of research funding is going to various forms of software development. I am happy to be shown wrong but 10% seems like a low estimate as literally all analysis is mediated by software. It's not like people crack out slide rules when they get a data set from a sequencer or mass spec. They go to GitHub and download some obscure domain-specific open source analysis package. Point being: a tiny administrative change could ensure that we direct $3B a year to open source scientific software in biomedicine! And further, it nearly looks this way already.
Unfortunately there isn't a requirement that the code developed under grants is released as open source, but there is a lot of movement to make it so. Furthermore, researchers have strong incentives to provide reusable software implementations of their research. (I know many people say the incentives run against this, but it is now clear that useful software gets more citations and scientists forget so at their own risk!)
I don't have a recent budget handy, but at least 10% of research funding is going to various forms of software development. I am happy to be shown wrong but 10% seems like a low estimate as literally all analysis is mediated by software. It's not like people crack out slide rules when they get a data set from a sequencer or mass spec. They go to GitHub and download some obscure domain-specific open source analysis package. Point being: a tiny administrative change could ensure that we direct $3B a year to open source scientific software in biomedicine! And further, it nearly looks this way already.
yes but those people aren't silicon valley smart. Now that the tech billionaires are working on it we should have human health solved in a jiffy. It's like how medical informatics was in a pathetic state for decades until James Clark decided to take it on. After Netscape it was a simple matter and thanks to Healtheon all our healthcare software is good enough!
Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan announce $3 billion
initiative to ‘cure all diseases’
s/initiative/investment/
Today’s announcement follows the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative’s
investment in Andela, a startup that trains and outsources work
to developers in Africa.That investment and this announcement aren't the same thing.
The absolutely crazy thing is that in this day and age the vast majority of diagnosed paediatric cancers are not sequenced (no germline, tumor or RNA seq) It actually makes me feel quite sick that there is so much information out there that is not being mined or analyzed.
I hope this money does not go into some sort of "in 100 years from now moonshot" as opposed to, we have huge urgent needs for money right now.
I hope this money does not go into some sort of "in 100 years from now moonshot" as opposed to, we have huge urgent needs for money right now.
These self-congratulatory billionaire philanthropists and their tax evasion schemes really irk me. Everything won't be peachy in the future. We're well on our way to warm up the planet by 4 degrees Celsius by 2100, because of the globalized world in which you could gain your fortune. Stop exerting power of money that doesn't belong to you, pay your taxes like everyone else, and maybe governments would have more means to improve issues that were democratically prioritized, with more oversight. These flashy single issues funds with vague goals are mainly there to serve the ego of whoever funded them.
The school of life has a good video on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTAE5m3ZO2E
The school of life has a good video on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTAE5m3ZO2E
Most infectious diseases in humans are known to have originated from wildlife, so eradicating all current diseases will still leave us with new diseases entering the human population. Current rate at which new diseases establish themselves in the human population is about ~1 per year, moreso under unstable climate [Greger, Woolhouse].
http://czbiohub.org/projects/infectious-disease/
Looks like Chan and Zuckerberg's initiative on infectious diseases is focused on a rapid response once a disease establishes itself in humans. There is certainly a lot to win there, but it is still acting after the fact, rather than prevention. Would have liked part of the effort to be focused on monitoring wildlife to understand which diseases are at risk of jumping over.
Greger, M.Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 33, 243–299 (2007). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18033595
Woolhouse, M .E.J. Trends Microbiol. 10, s3–s7 (2002). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12377561
http://czbiohub.org/projects/infectious-disease/
Looks like Chan and Zuckerberg's initiative on infectious diseases is focused on a rapid response once a disease establishes itself in humans. There is certainly a lot to win there, but it is still acting after the fact, rather than prevention. Would have liked part of the effort to be focused on monitoring wildlife to understand which diseases are at risk of jumping over.
Greger, M.Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 33, 243–299 (2007). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18033595
Woolhouse, M .E.J. Trends Microbiol. 10, s3–s7 (2002). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12377561
Not sure why there is a lot of negativity here. It doesn't seem that ridiculous of a goal. I think by 2100 we will have extremely powerful AI that will make fighting diseases extremely easy compared to methods available today. To be honest, it seems like an achievable goal.
I wish Zuckerberg and Chan the best in this.
I wish Zuckerberg and Chan the best in this.
I think by 2100 we will have extremely powerful AI that will make fighting diseases extremely easy compared to methods available today.
Right. Just like the jetpacks and lunar colonies we have easy access to now, as promised in the 1960s.
Right. Just like the jetpacks and lunar colonies we have easy access to now, as promised in the 1960s.
As soon as we stop calling categorization algorithms "machine learning". It doesn't help to not know what machine intelligence isn't.
Would you trade the development of the internet for jetpacks? I wouldn't.
The point is that most predictions of what the future holds for us (based on spike developments in the past 5-10 years)† usually prove to be quite silly.
† And in ML's case, ridiculously successful branding (per the sibling comment of yours).
† And in ML's case, ridiculously successful branding (per the sibling comment of yours).
> Not sure why there is a lot of negativity here.
Because there is a widespread dislike of Zuckerberg on HN and most other similar discussion forums. Happens in every thread about him. He's an uber billionaire that got rich serving ads on a social network that couldn't be any more mainstream at this point. Facebook is viewed mostly as a privacy invading corporate monster now by the crowd that dislikes Zuckerberg. He plans to donate all of his wealth and what you mostly saw on here in discussion was venom and conspiracy theories about how it was nothing but a tax dodge (which only betrayed the vast ignorance on tax laws).
Because there is a widespread dislike of Zuckerberg on HN and most other similar discussion forums. Happens in every thread about him. He's an uber billionaire that got rich serving ads on a social network that couldn't be any more mainstream at this point. Facebook is viewed mostly as a privacy invading corporate monster now by the crowd that dislikes Zuckerberg. He plans to donate all of his wealth and what you mostly saw on here in discussion was venom and conspiracy theories about how it was nothing but a tax dodge (which only betrayed the vast ignorance on tax laws).
"All diseases" is not only ridiculous, it's impossible.
What sort of diseases do you suppose extremely powerful AI might be able to manufacture for militaries, terrorists, dissatisfied hackers, etc?
It's about as realistic as Facebook (or any big company really) being able to fix all the legacy issues in their own codebases. Except way less achievable.
If you declared feature lock I bet you could get Facebook to have 100x less bugs in 10 years. If we aren't also genetically enhancing yourself, at least it could be a semi fixed target.
[deleted]
"Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future." – Yoda
[deleted]
This is great. Great achievements as a startup founder and now philanthropy.
For those comparing this to pharma companies. Pharma companies invest in drugs that they can make money with. It sounds as though this $3 billion is aiming at more general research and making it publicly available.
For those comparing this to pharma companies. Pharma companies invest in drugs that they can make money with. It sounds as though this $3 billion is aiming at more general research and making it publicly available.
>Pharma companies invest in drugs that they can make money with
And they also do a lot of philanthropic work:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/16/leadership-philanthropy-cha...
The idea the "Pharma companies" act any one specific way is only something you'd read on HackerNews. This is great of Mr. Zuckerberg, but it doesn't require us to downplay the charitable work of other people, or in this case other industries.
And they also do a lot of philanthropic work:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/16/leadership-philanthropy-cha...
The idea the "Pharma companies" act any one specific way is only something you'd read on HackerNews. This is great of Mr. Zuckerberg, but it doesn't require us to downplay the charitable work of other people, or in this case other industries.
maybe you should hold off on the praise until there's some results to show for it. making a press statement is not the same thing as curing a disease.
I'm comfortable praising someone for giving away 3 billion dollars to fight disease, even before the results are in.
Indeed. In fact most of the wealthy people I know are quite charitable, in contrast to the way "the rich" are portrayed in the media and politics. And a high profile commitment like this from a high profile person could encourage that.
This is lovely and all.
But he is in a much better position to work on the curious problems of ever increasing political polarization in our new Post-Factual world.
If I were to guess, over the next century that problem is going to result is a vastly more misery than a slight speed up to medical technology could compensate for.
But he is in a much better position to work on the curious problems of ever increasing political polarization in our new Post-Factual world.
If I were to guess, over the next century that problem is going to result is a vastly more misery than a slight speed up to medical technology could compensate for.
I am much more concerned about social/ethical/cultural problems in general. I think if those problems were solved, all other issues with effectively evaporate in a very short time, because we waste a tremendous amount of energy on, well, random crap.
Sometimes technological/medical/governmental/etc. changes do move the social forward so there's hope there.
Sometimes technological/medical/governmental/etc. changes do move the social forward so there's hope there.
I agree entirely. And, looking at a small but easier part, I believe that there is a particular piece that Zuckerberg can work on very effectively.
His company is now a key part of the way people form their view of the world. The algorithm/process that selects what ideas they are exposed to chooses only the most outlandish and memorable ideas that also serve to reinforce the viewers already existing preconceptions. This, after all, makes facebook quite attractive: an echo chamber of stimulating impressions that always reconfirm your world view. Obviously accuracy is irrelevant in this model and evidence is unheard of.
This is a specific problem that is contributing to a completely credulous world view, worsening political gaps based on untruths and, worst of all, creating the belief that fact is just another word for opinion. And this problem is exactly in his area of expertise on a platform he has control of.
At any rate, if not worked on pretty quick, a re-established House Un-American Activities Committee will make it awfully hard later.
His company is now a key part of the way people form their view of the world. The algorithm/process that selects what ideas they are exposed to chooses only the most outlandish and memorable ideas that also serve to reinforce the viewers already existing preconceptions. This, after all, makes facebook quite attractive: an echo chamber of stimulating impressions that always reconfirm your world view. Obviously accuracy is irrelevant in this model and evidence is unheard of.
This is a specific problem that is contributing to a completely credulous world view, worsening political gaps based on untruths and, worst of all, creating the belief that fact is just another word for opinion. And this problem is exactly in his area of expertise on a platform he has control of.
At any rate, if not worked on pretty quick, a re-established House Un-American Activities Committee will make it awfully hard later.
I would never discourage them, audacious goals are how real change is achieved.
But in the history of the world, every time you conquer one disease, a worse and scarier one seems to fill the void. And if you wanted to get pedantic, it could be said that Humanity is a disease of the Earth. Eliminating that infestation might qualify under the goal. Perhaps AI is not going to solve the problem by eliminating disease, but eliminating that which can be diseased. Kill the prey, and the predator dies.
But in the history of the world, every time you conquer one disease, a worse and scarier one seems to fill the void. And if you wanted to get pedantic, it could be said that Humanity is a disease of the Earth. Eliminating that infestation might qualify under the goal. Perhaps AI is not going to solve the problem by eliminating disease, but eliminating that which can be diseased. Kill the prey, and the predator dies.
Pedantic or simply oddly foolish? That's not a precise statement at all. The concept of humanity-as-a-disease makes no sense outside of a highly misanthropic and Stockholm-syndrome-ish view of the world. "Earth" is not a sensing entity, for one, so you cannot commit moral crimes against it (i.e, bring forth to it the very real suffering that a human experiences from a disease), and it's also the source of both humanity and disease in the first place. We have diseases because "Earth" runs a process by which various creatures are continually created and torment each other to figure out who survives better.
Removing humans would do nothing more but restart the misery process again, until another intelligent vehicle appears to try to resist it, assuming that intelligent vehicles are a low energy state that evolution-style processes like to reach. Such a vehicle is our best bet for the disease truly going away. The intelligent vehicle, of course, will be highly influenced by the natural world it came from.
You could go for a Sargeras-style crusade and decide to extinguish all life in the universe and make all planets uninhabitable so that nothing can ever evolve again to cause diseases anywhere, but you would still need such an immensely powerful vehicle to enable that that you could as well stop wasting your time and make utopias instead because if you can handle FTL travel you can handle some microbes.
> But in the history of the world, every time you conquer one disease, a worse and scarier one seems to fill the void.
There are plenty of awful diseases people used to get from unsanitary conditions, malnourishment, and direct contact with nature that we don't talk about anymore because nobody gets them in first world countries or because they have been eliminated.
Removing humans would do nothing more but restart the misery process again, until another intelligent vehicle appears to try to resist it, assuming that intelligent vehicles are a low energy state that evolution-style processes like to reach. Such a vehicle is our best bet for the disease truly going away. The intelligent vehicle, of course, will be highly influenced by the natural world it came from.
You could go for a Sargeras-style crusade and decide to extinguish all life in the universe and make all planets uninhabitable so that nothing can ever evolve again to cause diseases anywhere, but you would still need such an immensely powerful vehicle to enable that that you could as well stop wasting your time and make utopias instead because if you can handle FTL travel you can handle some microbes.
> But in the history of the world, every time you conquer one disease, a worse and scarier one seems to fill the void.
There are plenty of awful diseases people used to get from unsanitary conditions, malnourishment, and direct contact with nature that we don't talk about anymore because nobody gets them in first world countries or because they have been eliminated.
I just feel this is too broad and unbounded. They should have focused on a specific diseases and a shorter timeframe. By 2100 most of us will be long dead by current standards.
Very nice. Some context:
Mark Zuckerberg is worth 55 billion dollars. This is 5% of his net worth.
Mark Zuckerberg spent 20bn on Whatsapp. At his 28% shareholding in facebook that's a 5.6bn USD personal commitment.
The top 5 global pharma companies spent 42 billion USD on R&D in 2015 alone. Total pharma sector R&D is circa 200 yards. Every singe year. They aren't anywhere near "curing all diseases". This intiative would fund them for 5 days.
Very generous, but let's keep some perspective.
Mark Zuckerberg is worth 55 billion dollars. This is 5% of his net worth.
Mark Zuckerberg spent 20bn on Whatsapp. At his 28% shareholding in facebook that's a 5.6bn USD personal commitment.
The top 5 global pharma companies spent 42 billion USD on R&D in 2015 alone. Total pharma sector R&D is circa 200 yards. Every singe year. They aren't anywhere near "curing all diseases". This intiative would fund them for 5 days.
Very generous, but let's keep some perspective.
> Mark Zuckerberg spent 20bn on Whatsapp. At his 28% shareholding in facebook that's a 5.6bn USD personal commitment.
That's not how it works. Whatsapp was an investment, Chan Zuckerberg Science is not an investment. If he had announced a new for-profit drug company with $20bn of Facebook's money you would have a point. It still doesn't work out as a personal commitment though, Mark's shares of FB weren't suddenly worth $5.6b less (in fact shares have surged since!).
That's not how it works. Whatsapp was an investment, Chan Zuckerberg Science is not an investment. If he had announced a new for-profit drug company with $20bn of Facebook's money you would have a point. It still doesn't work out as a personal commitment though, Mark's shares of FB weren't suddenly worth $5.6b less (in fact shares have surged since!).
100% agreed. Investment vs consumption. Though maybe, just maybe, this thing has an "investment in reputation" angle to it too? More generally I wanted to contextualize the amounts.
I wonder how much of that 42 billion is duplicating each other's work due to competitive/secrecy concerns.
That wouldn't be an issue with this initiative, and I think it's very significant that they're partnering with academia on this.
That wouldn't be an issue with this initiative, and I think it's very significant that they're partnering with academia on this.
It still does not work out. I am working at a major cancer center with 2.*00 employees incl. 1200 scientists. We have a budget of ~250 million. So you could pay for this centre for 15 years with Zucks money. Hardly enough time to treat all diseases or even "just" cancer, and I can assure you, we are not slacking off.
because Pharma doesn't partner with academia??
"The top 5 global pharma companies spent 42 billion USD on R&D in 2015 alone."
Pharmacy companies are are not aiming to cure diseases, they aim to invent drugs that make good money. Eradicating diseases is harmful to their business.
Pharmacy companies are are not aiming to cure diseases, they aim to invent drugs that make good money. Eradicating diseases is harmful to their business.
>The top 5 global pharma companies spent 42 billion USD on R&D in 2015 alone
But how much of that spend was actually targeted at curing diseases, versus things like hair loss treatments, erectile dysfunction, type 2 diabetes, or other first world problems? It's well known that big pharma corps generally ignore the low hanging fruit of curable third world diseases because there is no monetary incentive for it. See why there was no viable Ebola vaccine until the latest outbreak, even though we've been dealing with it for decades.
But how much of that spend was actually targeted at curing diseases, versus things like hair loss treatments, erectile dysfunction, type 2 diabetes, or other first world problems? It's well known that big pharma corps generally ignore the low hanging fruit of curable third world diseases because there is no monetary incentive for it. See why there was no viable Ebola vaccine until the latest outbreak, even though we've been dealing with it for decades.
If you look at pharma company R&D, they know where their bread is buttered: people who are at risk of death are much bigger spenders than brunettes wanting to be blondes. 70%+ of pharma R&D goes towards life-prolonging research.
While we've been dealing with Ebola for decades, it was characterized as both a highly sporadic and largely self-limiting disease, and not particularly endemic.
Horrible as it is, that's not a great target for a vaccine. Especially not an expensive, hard to administer one. So it remained largely of academic and specialized interest.
The recent Ebola outbreak was a recontextualization of Ebola, from a sometimes scary disease where it would be handy to have an infrequently used vaccine for special circumstances to "This might be an endemic disease in West Africa".
Yes, throwing money at it helped, but it's hardly the only reason priorities shifted.
I'll also note that there's promising work on Dengue Fever vaccines, which are third world diseases, and most of the diseases that are near-term eradication targets are third world diseases. Often these challenges aren't "Pharma hasn't developed a drug yet" but "How do we get this drug to everyone?"
Horrible as it is, that's not a great target for a vaccine. Especially not an expensive, hard to administer one. So it remained largely of academic and specialized interest.
The recent Ebola outbreak was a recontextualization of Ebola, from a sometimes scary disease where it would be handy to have an infrequently used vaccine for special circumstances to "This might be an endemic disease in West Africa".
Yes, throwing money at it helped, but it's hardly the only reason priorities shifted.
I'll also note that there's promising work on Dengue Fever vaccines, which are third world diseases, and most of the diseases that are near-term eradication targets are third world diseases. Often these challenges aren't "Pharma hasn't developed a drug yet" but "How do we get this drug to everyone?"
I think that means they were working on it weren't they? I doubt the Ebola outbreak timeline was enough to warrant the research to figure it out. They probably already had projects going but suddenly they got a lot more attention through regulations to get it to market faster.
So lets say this were possible. Where would be the best place to throw this money? Just researching X disease one by one isn't going to be successful. There are not enough resources available to make that happen that way. Period.
So what if a big leap in computational biology happened? Making faster machines is relatively easier and largely unregulated.
So you focus on simulating disease and some form of automation that tries to cure it. We have the problem of building these models for the computer to crunch on. So why not build them from people. Continuously monitor everything about someone. DNA, the various omics, self reports. All the while machine learning is trying learn these models. So other automations can change them.
So the first thing we need is a way to collect all this data. Itself a major medical breakthrough. How much data do we need to build the models? This seems to be the first breakthrough we need to even approach this.
So what if a big leap in computational biology happened? Making faster machines is relatively easier and largely unregulated.
So you focus on simulating disease and some form of automation that tries to cure it. We have the problem of building these models for the computer to crunch on. So why not build them from people. Continuously monitor everything about someone. DNA, the various omics, self reports. All the while machine learning is trying learn these models. So other automations can change them.
So the first thing we need is a way to collect all this data. Itself a major medical breakthrough. How much data do we need to build the models? This seems to be the first breakthrough we need to even approach this.
Feeling so privileged right now; what a great time to be alive and see such visionary leadership. Thank you Mark, Priscilla, Bill, and the thousands of people whose names I don't know who work tirelessly on these problems.
[deleted]
any money spent on research is good but,
1. governments around the world probably spend hundreds of billions yearly on research in medicine alone. and zuckerberg wants to solve everything with his 3bn?
2. our current technology is not even close to good enough to make the kind of major breakthroughs needed to say we 'cured cancer'. for example, the biggest neural networks we trained have the order of 10bn parameters while the human brain has 100bn neurons, each, I'm guessing, having at least 10 parameters. similarly for very small scale technology. I think we need to tone down a bit the hype in AI and computing.
1. governments around the world probably spend hundreds of billions yearly on research in medicine alone. and zuckerberg wants to solve everything with his 3bn?
2. our current technology is not even close to good enough to make the kind of major breakthroughs needed to say we 'cured cancer'. for example, the biggest neural networks we trained have the order of 10bn parameters while the human brain has 100bn neurons, each, I'm guessing, having at least 10 parameters. similarly for very small scale technology. I think we need to tone down a bit the hype in AI and computing.
All disease? I hope they mean specifically pathogens, because there are plenty of diseases that are caused by other things or have unknown causes, and you can throw ten times the net worth of Facebook at them and they probably wouldn't be cured noticeably sooner. If it's just pathogens, I could believe that if we programmed nanoprobes that could target them, making antibiotics/antivirals permanently obsolete.
To achieve this goal, Mark will need access to the entire world medical records, selling our data to insurance companies. Sorry Mark, but I refuse to trade my privacy, and the safety of millions that cannot afford medical insurance with a promise of living in a world without disease.
New diseases will come to be. Possibly, the cures will cause the new diseases, possibly something else, but all disease won't be conquered.
Does this ambitious projection include only disease or does it also include disorder? I think it would be cool to cure disorder before disease.
Addiction is probably one of the worst diseases, and I am not sure that you can 'cure' it.
I don't think it's a good thing to make us disease-free in terms of evolution.
I think it's better to just cure the diseases that kill us ( long/short-term) eg. cancer, aids, ... or make us immoble for longer term ( parkinson, ..)
Why? Because i think the best defense is a good immune system. You don't get a good immune system by staying inside and infection free and using medication all the time. Let people become sick ( not lethal ones) and let nature fight it off.
I think it's better to just cure the diseases that kill us ( long/short-term) eg. cancer, aids, ... or make us immoble for longer term ( parkinson, ..)
Why? Because i think the best defense is a good immune system. You don't get a good immune system by staying inside and infection free and using medication all the time. Let people become sick ( not lethal ones) and let nature fight it off.
This is the comment I've been looking for.
Even aside from evolution - we are reliant on our gut microbe to survive. Unfortunately, in some cases, what makes us sick is stuff from our gut microbe! We're literally a biome unto ourselves - and who knows what would happen if we removed all X. Our immune systems are pretty damn good at killing stuff off, and we've also seen that the elimination of worms (ew) from our biome may have cause or contributed to a number of autoimmune conditions.
This sounds very much like an unintended side effects scenario. I definitely agree that we need to eliminate lethal and incapacitating conditions. However getting rid of "all disease"... it may cause more problems than it solves.
And then there's the sociological angle too
Even aside from evolution - we are reliant on our gut microbe to survive. Unfortunately, in some cases, what makes us sick is stuff from our gut microbe! We're literally a biome unto ourselves - and who knows what would happen if we removed all X. Our immune systems are pretty damn good at killing stuff off, and we've also seen that the elimination of worms (ew) from our biome may have cause or contributed to a number of autoimmune conditions.
This sounds very much like an unintended side effects scenario. I definitely agree that we need to eliminate lethal and incapacitating conditions. However getting rid of "all disease"... it may cause more problems than it solves.
And then there's the sociological angle too
In this vein, Some very interesting work is being done by the church group at Harvard to encode cells to withstand all viral infections at the genetic level.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2101657-synthetic-super...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2101657-synthetic-super...
I built a visualizer of the top causes of death. We've got a lot of diseases to cure!
https://www.infino.me/mortality/usmap
https://www.infino.me/mortality/usmap
Including aging as a disease?
I wonder what they plan to do about the anti-vaccination movement.
What about new diseases that are discovered between now and then?
The commitment is very big, my comment is very small.
Whatever exists needs to be challenged continuously to keep existing. Any naive attempt to suppress all adversity forever will backfire.
Whatever exists needs to be challenged continuously to keep existing. Any naive attempt to suppress all adversity forever will backfire.
Ok, so you would rather Zuck not spend his money trying to cure diseases?
No, but the sanguinary headline made me imagine a future where all biological stressors have actually been eradicated. Our species would be at its weakest.
I guess I was briefly taking the donator's unicorn propaganda literally. Sorry.
I guess I was briefly taking the donator's unicorn propaganda literally. Sorry.
We're already partly there. Infant mortality is way down, allowing weak babies to live on to reproduce. Antibiotics and immunization of course. A lot of the good things we do for individuals are probably bad for our species because they remove stressors.
That's a very strange definition of "weakest" you're using there.
I'd like to see their efforts in stopping the spread of the most rapidly increasing disease to challenge humanity in any man's lifetime.
It's called Facebook.
It's called Facebook.
I don't remember who's quote is but sounds relevant for this article :
We won't have cure for diseases until first we have a cure for greed.
We won't have cure for diseases until first we have a cure for greed.
[deleted]
How does one even define "disease"?
I'm sick of this contrarian disruptive nonsense.
Redd Foxx got to choose his fate, but what am I going to do while forced to sit around the hospital dying of nothing?
Find a socially acceptable alternative to disease before you eliminate it.
(Ok, to put it more clearly: get off my damn lawn and my damn planet you stupid non-exponential function understanding kids.. Please!)
Redd Foxx got to choose his fate, but what am I going to do while forced to sit around the hospital dying of nothing?
Find a socially acceptable alternative to disease before you eliminate it.
(Ok, to put it more clearly: get off my damn lawn and my damn planet you stupid non-exponential function understanding kids.. Please!)
Such a joke. If they were anyone else we would be calling them out. Is there any evidence that this wealth won't be concentrated in the same industry, whose stock prices would decrease if their drugs worked to treat any disease causes. A claim like this can be dismissed without evidence.
Why does the author keep saying "Ms Chan"? Aren't they married?
Should be Dr. Chan. She has an MD.
By 2100 I hope we have a patchable structures that just need an electronic update to generate the new immune cell/protein/expression.
These acts of apparent philanthropy from ridiculously wealthy people rub me the wrong way. It feels like those rich patrons from older times who would bestow their "generosity" as they pleased, except that in modern times most countries have frameworks in place to make this sort of work happen, and these rich people choose to ignore them, or worse, disparage them.
Companies like Facebook (and people like Mark Zuckerberg) actively avoid paying taxes whenever they can, in a lot of countries that, for example, have public healthcare and other public institutions that would normally benefit from these taxes.
It's a bit like repeatedly stealing some kid's lunch, and then making fun of the kid for her weakness while appearing strong (and stronger in comparison to the weak kid) and compassionate when the kid passes out and you carry her on your back.
Companies like Facebook (and people like Mark Zuckerberg) actively avoid paying taxes whenever they can, in a lot of countries that, for example, have public healthcare and other public institutions that would normally benefit from these taxes.
It's a bit like repeatedly stealing some kid's lunch, and then making fun of the kid for her weakness while appearing strong (and stronger in comparison to the weak kid) and compassionate when the kid passes out and you carry her on your back.
Very true. Empires build by companies with low ethics and that are known for bullying competition and poor integrity.
Some skepticism here would be appropriate. I guess it's still better then them buying more, eh, yachts.
Still, I can't shake the feeling that instead of making a horrible closed product, Facebook, that's basically eating the internet like a cancer, itself -- how about fixing that too?
These people are so powerful they have presidents kissing their ass.
Some skepticism here would be appropriate. I guess it's still better then them buying more, eh, yachts.
Still, I can't shake the feeling that instead of making a horrible closed product, Facebook, that's basically eating the internet like a cancer, itself -- how about fixing that too?
These people are so powerful they have presidents kissing their ass.
I think peoples' perspectives on this are basically divided by the question of who they think is more effective at using these pools of money: foundations run by certain wealthy people, or governments. I've waffled on this question my whole adult life, but now more than ever, I'm pretty happy that, for instance, the donors to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation were able to donate all that money, instead of seeing it under the control of the current (or last few iterations of the) US congress...
Who will own the intellectual property rights on the discoveries ? If it's Zuck, then I'm not interested.
as long as smoking will be removed the planet I'm fine
Not bold enough. Let them tackle nondeterminism first.)
Most likely by year 2100 Mark and Priscilla won't be alive, and people that read about this claim won't be alive either. Then, it is not a legally binding claim. I think it's a way to promote their foundation.
EDIT: JWZ disagrees that this is all rainbows and puppydogs.
Archive.org link because JWZ dislikes HN- https://web.archive.org/web/20160818144913/https://www.jwz.o...
Archive.org link because JWZ dislikes HN- https://web.archive.org/web/20160818144913/https://www.jwz.o...
NSFW due to testicle.
JWZ has some referrer detection so you might want to open it in a private tab to get around.
JWZ has some referrer detection so you might want to open it in a private tab to get around.
And a perfect illustration of why "I'll just leave this here" is so much worse than a simple description of the link target.
Beware to anyone who follows that link directly (jwz isn't a big fan of HN referrals, for those who don't know).
Hubris, much?
Yes, this is a commendable effort, but I don't think they have the smarts/money for this. Even at an investor/patron level.
Yes, this is a commendable effort, but I don't think they have the smarts/money for this. Even at an investor/patron level.
It almost certainly won't happen, but you could have said the same thing about starting a social network that includes over a billion daily users.
That's like comparing the discovery of a new fundamental force, with the discovery that mythical dragons have been living in secret among us as our lawyers. It's true that both are unlikely, but one is ridiculous and the other merely very very challenging.
I don't think it's all that ridiculous, it's over 80 years in the future. 80 years ago we were dying of all sorts of [now] easily preventable and curable diseases. Penicillin was not used until 1942!
And now it's practically useless. It's not a one-sided battle we're in, and we're heavily outnumbered.
The point was that so much has changed in the previous ~80 years that I don't think it's ridiculous to think things will be radically different ~80 years into the future.
Barring universally available, and highly advanced nanotech, it's ridiculous to think that all diseases will be "tackled" in ~80 years. In that same time frame it's much more likely that we'll be tackling issues of how to maintain a semblance of civilization, not achieving utopia.
Not sure which one is the ridiculous and which one is the very very challenging...
this is marginally better than the Bluth family's fundraising efforts to cure TBA ...
Step 1: shut down Facebook.
Sorry to see you got downvoted for voicing your opinion. Remember, Stockholm Syndrome is a disease.
That opinion adds nothing to the current discussion. This isn't just an open "tell us any random opinion you might have!" forum; the idea is to contribute thoughts relevant to the topic.
I think the OP here was hinting along these lines perhaps:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/245251.php
Facebook is by some considered an addiction, so in some regards a disease that should be tackled along with others.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/245251.php
Facebook is by some considered an addiction, so in some regards a disease that should be tackled along with others.
I wonder why, all these billionaires first want to make billions, and then do philanthropy. How about making their services/business/products more affordable with which they are making all this money with in the first place?
For example: MS Office used to cost 4-500 euro for the average home user a few years ago. That was ridiculous.
If you have a small shop and 2000 Facebook page likes, Facebook rips you off each time you want to reach them.
Maybe market dictates these prices but then again, they would be in the position to dictate the prices in the first place.
For example: MS Office used to cost 4-500 euro for the average home user a few years ago. That was ridiculous.
If you have a small shop and 2000 Facebook page likes, Facebook rips you off each time you want to reach them.
Maybe market dictates these prices but then again, they would be in the position to dictate the prices in the first place.
Here's why:
To achieve what you suggest there would need to be a controlling majority of shareholders that also hold this philanthropic view, otherwise the execs are required to do the normal thing, optimize the returns of their shareholders. (To have this criteria while raising capitol will severely restrict who you can work with / have on your board)
This is often why I feel bad for execs who take flack when their company optimizes / minimizes their tax burdens as its their shareholders who require them to do so and the law that allows it.
For people like Zurkerberg the way they can achieve their philanthropic goals best is to build a massively profitable business with the support of other investors who will share that goal and then take their personal profits and use those to achieve their goals.
To achieve what you suggest there would need to be a controlling majority of shareholders that also hold this philanthropic view, otherwise the execs are required to do the normal thing, optimize the returns of their shareholders. (To have this criteria while raising capitol will severely restrict who you can work with / have on your board)
This is often why I feel bad for execs who take flack when their company optimizes / minimizes their tax burdens as its their shareholders who require them to do so and the law that allows it.
For people like Zurkerberg the way they can achieve their philanthropic goals best is to build a massively profitable business with the support of other investors who will share that goal and then take their personal profits and use those to achieve their goals.
Mis-pricing your offerings, high or low, can ruin your chances in a market. There shouldn't be any particular connection between a company's pricing strategy and philanthropy, especially for a company selling something that isn't essential for people to live.
I rather wonder why those philanthropists think they are the best to decide what to do with the money? If I understand it correnctly, neither Zuckerberg nor Gates have given up much control over their money, they just cannot use it anymore for themself.
Looking at the lasting impact of Carnagie's estate or any of the other billionaires who decided to spend their later life focusing on philanthropy, rather than just throwing cash at other peoples causes, I'd say they can and do provide a real to society by continuing to control their capital.
Just like the other commentors have pointed out, who is better qualified to launch and run a major project than those who already spent their lives building and scaling great businesses.
Just like the other commentors have pointed out, who is better qualified to launch and run a major project than those who already spent their lives building and scaling great businesses.
And who is more qualified?
It's a "me first" attitude, once folks get what they want, then they'll consider others. Pretty normal unfortunately.
Right, I mean there is something dubious too all this. Both Microsoft and Facebook did and are actually practicing enough shady business tactics. Internet explorer, tax evasion, privacy issues, you name it, they are all guilty of this kind of stuff. But then now, we should glorify them once they give away the money they earned this way.
... they are still redeeming things to do, but yeah, ideally you'd skip the scamming part. The Rockefellers made their money flatout on scams, but their name is fairly redeemed at this point.
You wonder why, yet these billionaires aren't wondering, they're doing.
The Government gives incentives for charity donations via tax benefits.
Charity with evaded money is very evil.
Public tax policy that either provides plentiful loopholes or high enough tax rates where billionaires/millionaires can (and are highly incentivized to) shift their money and use tax saving schemes are what's really evil.
If people spent time focusing on increasing government tax revenue from the rich rather than increasing tax rates on the rich - which just pushes more and more wealthy people to stash their money in tax shelters (see Ireland) rather than investing it at home - they'd actually succeed in improving the inequality situation. And most importantly boost the economy and create more middle income jobs (by keeping money as job-generating capital instead of sitting dormant in off-shore shelters).
Instead of expecting humans to stop acting out of self-interest, how about:
a) Creating incentives for businesses and the wealthy to not move money elsewhere by having competitive tax rates. The simple fact is having them pay something rather than further incentiving them to pay nothing would massively increase revenues without increasing rates.
b) Massively simplify the tax system to close the myriad of loopholes that allow these wealthy people to continue operating locally while shifting all tax liability elsewhere. Make it obvious exactly how much each person owes their governments at the end of each year.
Creating a tax policy that's grounded in the reality of human behaviour (you can call it evil if you wish) rather than idealistic fallacies of how people should act is the real solution here.... Assuming this whole thing Zuckerberg is creating is partially a form of tax sheltering in the first place.
If people spent time focusing on increasing government tax revenue from the rich rather than increasing tax rates on the rich - which just pushes more and more wealthy people to stash their money in tax shelters (see Ireland) rather than investing it at home - they'd actually succeed in improving the inequality situation. And most importantly boost the economy and create more middle income jobs (by keeping money as job-generating capital instead of sitting dormant in off-shore shelters).
Instead of expecting humans to stop acting out of self-interest, how about:
a) Creating incentives for businesses and the wealthy to not move money elsewhere by having competitive tax rates. The simple fact is having them pay something rather than further incentiving them to pay nothing would massively increase revenues without increasing rates.
b) Massively simplify the tax system to close the myriad of loopholes that allow these wealthy people to continue operating locally while shifting all tax liability elsewhere. Make it obvious exactly how much each person owes their governments at the end of each year.
Creating a tax policy that's grounded in the reality of human behaviour (you can call it evil if you wish) rather than idealistic fallacies of how people should act is the real solution here.... Assuming this whole thing Zuckerberg is creating is partially a form of tax sheltering in the first place.
I plan to conquer the world and all of its inhabitants... long after all of us here are dead or senescent.
I guess it is easy to make empty statements if you make them apply to a far enough future. Mars colonies from Musk (still working on getting the colonists there in one piece of course), and all disease tackled!*
*With $3Bn
I guess it is easy to make empty statements if you make them apply to a far enough future. Mars colonies from Musk (still working on getting the colonists there in one piece of course), and all disease tackled!*
*With $3Bn
The difference being that you don't have an army or the power necessary such that I'm going to consider your plans to be serious in the least.
With $56 billion, I'm inclined to take Zuckerberg a lot more seriously. He currently has eight times the annual R&D budget of Pfizer in paper wealth that has been increasing in value at a rapid clip (emphasis on paper, in that of course it may go up a lot more or down a lot, who knows). Tackling all disease is beyond grandiose; wiping out numerous diseases however is not - that would be an extraordinary accomplishment.
With $56 billion, I'm inclined to take Zuckerberg a lot more seriously. He currently has eight times the annual R&D budget of Pfizer in paper wealth that has been increasing in value at a rapid clip (emphasis on paper, in that of course it may go up a lot more or down a lot, who knows). Tackling all disease is beyond grandiose; wiping out numerous diseases however is not - that would be an extraordinary accomplishment.
Well, to be fair I am responding to the grandiose statement that he made, not the more reasonable one that he could have made.
And again, trolley problems...
There is $3B on on one track, with a note pinned to the top.. "To cure all diseases - <3 MarkZ".
A train is barreling down.
On the other track lies you, with a hoodie and a ham sandwich.
Watching to the side is HN...
HN can pull the switch and change the points, thereby saving the $3B, but killing you... in the hope the $3B will cure all disease.
On the other hand HN can say screw the cash and let's save a ham sandwich, because (ummm, let's face it, sorry kid, you aren't going to amount to much)
Little did HN know, you ARE MarkZ!
There is $3B on on one track, with a note pinned to the top.. "To cure all diseases - <3 MarkZ".
A train is barreling down.
On the other track lies you, with a hoodie and a ham sandwich.
Watching to the side is HN...
HN can pull the switch and change the points, thereby saving the $3B, but killing you... in the hope the $3B will cure all disease.
On the other hand HN can say screw the cash and let's save a ham sandwich, because (ummm, let's face it, sorry kid, you aren't going to amount to much)
Little did HN know, you ARE MarkZ!
Are you actually replying to me, or are you... what the hell are you talking about?
I was making an abstract defense in your favor based on the parent comment where someone appeared to be claiming you had neither the power nor the cash to have any say in the matter.
For all we know you might have billions or a machine for curing all diseases already working. (Or be MarkZ).
Yes, probably time for my bed, it's rather late. And far too late for moral philosophy.
For all we know you might have billions or a machine for curing all diseases already working. (Or be MarkZ).
Yes, probably time for my bed, it's rather late. And far too late for moral philosophy.
No no, I think I just missed it, my bad. Either way though, sleep well.
[deleted]
I really wonder why those techy multibillionaires invest in medicine rather than techy stuff. I'd rather like to see fusion and hardware research done. Speaking globally, that might just bump global economy so significantly, the illnesses would go down just because more people would be able to afford education and medical care easily.
Oh that's just great, another billionaire philanthropist curing all diseases. Like Gates did.
I don't know whether their passion loses momentum inside 'initiative/fund' or it was doomed to be opposite of it's cause from the start?
I don't know whether their passion loses momentum inside 'initiative/fund' or it was doomed to be opposite of it's cause from the start?
That's a strange reaction. Hasn't the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation been one of the most successful philanthropic organizations of all time? I thought they've saved millions of lives fighting malaria alone?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...
Also, Polio was near extinction before Gates jumped in and collected the ovations for finishing job.
http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ourworl...
That's great what they've done, but saying they've eradicated polio is brutal exaggeration.
http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ourworl...
That's great what they've done, but saying they've eradicated polio is brutal exaggeration.
The table I posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12551250 contradicts them "jumping in". Other major donors have continued to make large contributions to polio intervention over the period where the Gates foundation has made their contributions, the period on your graph where it is nearly gone.
There is literally nothing on that article about how many lives their initiative saved. Just standard corporate propaganda about how much they spent on this and that.
If I've spent 80 millions on Vaccines does that mean that I've saved hundreds of lives? No.
I don't want to be a truther here, nor I'll paste links that would confirm partial statement wrapped inside my question, but it would be great if one could be open to critically observe actions of our beloved philanthropists, there is complete universe beyond local news feeds.
If I've spent 80 millions on Vaccines does that mean that I've saved hundreds of lives? No.
I don't want to be a truther here, nor I'll paste links that would confirm partial statement wrapped inside my question, but it would be great if one could be open to critically observe actions of our beloved philanthropists, there is complete universe beyond local news feeds.
> There is literally nothing on that article about how many lives their initiative saved.
Well it's impossible to know exactly, but with statistics we can estimate that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has saved millions of lives. 7 million is the current estimate for just the vaccination program:
http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/infographic-...
Well it's impossible to know exactly, but with statistics we can estimate that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has saved millions of lives. 7 million is the current estimate for just the vaccination program:
http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/infographic-...
I think your opinion is probably interesting and potentially valid, but your tone in the original comment is limiting your ability to communicate effectively.
Less sarcasm would serve you well.
Less sarcasm would serve you well.
sarcasm is better part of life, it's not limiting it's enriching :) I fail to understand why people hate it?
It's the sarcasm tied to apparent lack of desire to discover or communicate actual information.
There are entire organizations devoted to assessing the effectiveness of various kinds of charity and measuring how many lives they save (e.g. http://www.givewell.org/ and https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/), and their reports can be found within 20 seconds of googling, less time than it took for you to type your based-on-no-actual-information sarcastic judgement.
Sarcasm plus knowledge would be fine.
There are entire organizations devoted to assessing the effectiveness of various kinds of charity and measuring how many lives they save (e.g. http://www.givewell.org/ and https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/), and their reports can be found within 20 seconds of googling, less time than it took for you to type your based-on-no-actual-information sarcastic judgement.
Sarcasm plus knowledge would be fine.
Sarcasm has its places. Hacker News discussion threads are not so much among them.
So it's not so much that people here hate sarcasm as that they value the differences between Hacker News and other places on the internet where people type text in boxes.
So it's not so much that people here hate sarcasm as that they value the differences between Hacker News and other places on the internet where people type text in boxes.
After a while, overtly sarcastic tone gets a bit boring when you get to read it every day in the every corner of internet over any possible issue.
And in my experience, it's rarely very effective in changing people's opinions, if they are not tending to agree with you already in the first place.
And in my experience, it's rarely very effective in changing people's opinions, if they are not tending to agree with you already in the first place.
Okay people, you win. I wasn't trying to change opinions, I just kept my own. I'm still new here so let's consider this an experiment in public discourse.
Peace ;)
Peace ;)
Because it's juvenile and lazy.
[deleted]
Which efforts of the Gates Foundation do you think are particularly 'doomed to be the opposite of it's cause'?
I've learned the hard way to (mostly) follow the HN guidelines when posting a comment. Otherwise there are plenty of other outlets for cynicism and rage. If your bit is not constructive or backed by some coherent thought process and facts you can usually skip commenting...
But as much as I'm rolling my eyes at their blanket statement, the spirit of "yes we can!" does way more for science and progress than naysay of critics.