Did anyone else find the banner at the top of the article (about preferring secondary and tertiary sources to primary ones) more interesting (about the problems with wikipedia) than the article itself?
Noticed , I think its first time i have seen that, usually ask for more primary published works.....
The problem is that the reason that his project was popular with people on Kickstarter was likely that he created the perception that the chances that his project will result in a working drugs is much higher than it is in reality.
If it was a tax deduction if it failed, but allowed for a gain, then it might be a way to do projects that were popular with people, but not attractive to Big Pharma or VC.
Big Pharma can make billions from this project if it works. Big Pharma also has a lot more expertise in judges the likelihood that it works than random people on Kickstarter.
If you take research on a new way to do exercise that inherently can't be patented then there can be a high chance that the research will create a lot of value but there's no business model to turn that value into money for the inventor. That's not the case with DRACO. Big Pharma is in a good position to assess whether it's a worthwhile investment of resources and put money into the project if they think it's a worthwhile investment.
Actually, Big Pharma would LOSE billions if it works. There are only a few anti-virals, and none of them work well, and most need to be used in combinations.
This is also not a blue sky hunt, he has a mechanism, and just needs to fine tune the hydrogenation or delivery method.
from Wiki "DRACO is selective for virus-infected cells. Differentiation between infected and healthy cells is made primarily via the length and type of RNA transcription helices present within the cell. Most viruses produce long dsRNA helices during transcription and replication. In contrast, uninfected mammalian cells generally produce dsRNA helices of fewer than 24 base pairs during transcription. Cell death is effected via one of the last steps in the apoptosis pathway"
I think we discussed this previously on LW. In general the argument isn't convincing in his case.
Gilead made 20$ billion with a drug that cures one virus. If a pharma company would think that his approach has a 10% of working to cure all viruses spending 100$ million or more would be very interesting for traditional pharma companies under the current incentive scheme.
Someone did a article about creating a Kickstarter that actually issued shares in a company if they went over big.
If it was a tax deduction if it failed, but allowed for a gain, then it might be a way to do projects that were popular with people, but not attractive to Big Pharma or VC.
You could even have "Hackerspaces" that brought together teams just to do projects. If they included housing, it would be a great way to give postdocs some work, and some visibility while they wait to get into a static lab.
might want to keep an eye out for a Mars global dust storm too...
"The paper noted that conditions in the current Mars dust-storm season are very similar to those for a number of years when global storms occurred in the past."
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6638
Shirley's 2015 paper in the journal Icarus
Not really related, but Interesting paper on DNA degradation rates in fossils. They do discuss optimal temp for storage at -5c.
"In an attempt to document a correlation between sample age and DNA preservation, we use a quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) design to measure relative copy numbers of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) fragments from bones of the extinct New Zealand moa "
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1748/4724
Last i heard, the FDA doesn't actually care about efficacy, it only cares about process. It focuses on the formulation of studies, and fabrication and manufacturing processes. basically an ISO 9001 type certification.
View more: Next
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
another group working on mosquito reduction.
https://debugproject.com/faqs/