I was surprised to see that an entrepreneur like Peter Thiel could just go on stage and openly talk about possibilities life extension at a top university like Stanford. Is it common in the Silicon Valley to just go around talking about life extension as an "important business opportunity"? I have heard Aubrey de Grey talking about escape velocity of longevity etc. But I am strangely happy as well startled that one could just walk into a class room and talk about life extension. You guys must be living in paradise ;-). I admire that liberty more than the feasibility or not of life extension itself.
This has become a very common topic of conversation in the US (not just Silicon Valley) among engineers, tech-enthusiasts, and academics in the past decade or so. I think it has a lot to do with Ray Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machines" -- at least that was around the time I noticed even regular people talking about this subject without fear of being labeled an eccentric.
There are still communities where this topic is not openly discussed. A friend in the medical field told me once it's taboo to talk about radical life extension in many sectors of the healthcare industry -- which I find very sad. There are also religious communities in the US that this doesn't sit well with.
Overall I'd say we're not far away from mainstream acceptance of these ideas -- even among the medical establishment and religious communities. As for top universities -- this has been a topic of conversation for quite some time.
I am from Bangalore. If I went around telling this... they'll probably label me a crackpot. Even the geeks around me wud probably consider this too crazy to be real. I will check out and see how the world around me reacts.
Really? I find it hard to understand why <em>anyone</em> would consider the idea of life extension as taboo. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that almost everyone, irrespective of your religious or other inclinations, desire to live a long and quality life?
I taught a course at an NYU grad program as an adjunct once, and was surprised at how much freedom professors had around subject matter. I was expecting someone to review my curriculum in detail, but in actuality I just had a single conversation with the department chair on the general parameters of my course and that was it.
It was very liberating... in general, the department will depend largely on student complaints and reviews to evaluate your performance. Plus usually someone from the department will sit in on your class at some point. Other than that, you're on your own!
>Why wouldn't one be able to do something like that? What would stop it from happening?
A board/committee or whatever that oversaw what was happening at the university. They could have censored it as being too taboo. I've heard a lot of fuss about resistance to Stem Cell Research/Creationist textbooks etc. But as another commenter said, the speakers are a lot more autonomous and free. Nice to hear.
Thiel is misinterpreting the increase in lifespan data. It's a famous dataset, but it's intepreted in terms of decreasing infant mortality -- not an increase in the average upper limits. Over the last couple hundred years, the average western lifespan if you've made it to age 40 has increased by about ten years. However, infant and childhood mortality (and death due to childbirth in someone's twenties) have gone through the floor, leading to the graph Thiel is using here.
The ~6 years of lifespan gained at age 65 since the 60s largely has to do with basic geriatric care (60 years ago, a fall leading to a broken hip would kill you at age 70) rather than true "life extension". Also, many therapies for things like cancer at that age can keep you alive, but quality of life is another thing entirely; and then it still kills you.
OT: one of the guets said, "Personal referrals are very important for recruiting. We try and get each engineer to refer 2 people. 2^n scales very well. You get great people, but also get to stay under the radar"
n here is "generation". Start with one engineer, n=0. They refer 2, n=1. They each refer 2, referring a total of 4, n=2. Etc.
(It works out such that the total number of people follows the same curve. Think of the total number of engineers as (2^n)-1: following the same example above, one engineer is then n=1, three total is n=2, seven total is n=3.)
Ask HN: What is the best introductory bioinformatics book for a data mining researcher, so that he can understand the practical biotech applications of data mining algorithms he already know?
I too was recently looking for how someone with good machine learning experience could contribute. I signed up for the pharma, neurobiology and genomics coursera courses.
My research also pointed me to the following books. The first two I got because they were highly recommended and most fit my interests.
Genes, Proteins and Computers
A Practical Introduction to the Simulation of Molecular Systems
--------------------------
##Ungot
An Introduction to Bioinformatics Algorithms
Bioinformatics : Machine learning approaches
Computational Genome Analysis,
Understanding Bioinformatics by Marketa Zvelebil
Biological Sequence Analysis, Durbin et al
Bioinformatics by David Mount :
Statistical Methods in Bioinformatics Warren J. Ewens, Gregory R. Grant
Bioinformatics Basics: Applications in Biological Science and Medicine
Time Warps, String Edits, and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison
Understanding Bioinformatics
Bioinformatics for Dummies
Molecular Evolution
Bioinformatics and Molecular Evolution
Algorithms on Strings, Tree's and Sequences
Bioinformatics - A Practical Guide to the analysis of Genes and Protein
The Art of Molecular Dynamics Simulation
Protein Bioinformatics: An Algorithmic Approach to Sequence and Structure Analysis
Here (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=1000-genome) is a recent article in Scientific American regarding sequencing a genome for <= $1000. It's pretty cool how it works. Most current genome sequencers tell bases apart by different wavelengths of light, but this one takes a completely different approach and measures pH changes.
I was coming of age just after the internet bubble burst (graduated high school in 2002). I entered college as a biochem major and so did my peers, a couple of whom are now biomed grad students. Thinking back, I remember a lot of biotech-topia talk, but it seems to have waned in recent years (against a wave of social-mobile).
Just one anecdote, but I notice a cycle between tech-social and tech-bio. Time for the pendulum to swing again?
It seems to me that the most immediate implication of inexpensive genome sequencing (23andMe et al) is the ability to tailor an individual’s medical care based on their genetic information.
America’s legal system has miles of catching up to do before any genome-informed personalized medicine solutions can come to market. 2008’s Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act was necessary to ensure that biomedical research continues to advance and so that patients are comfortable availing themselves to genetic diagnostic tests.
There are really unresolved issues: (1) who should ultimately have access to the results of genetic testing? (2) when should a physician divulge information regarding patients’ liabilities for certain diseases? (3) who can decide that someone’s genome should be sequenced?
Re: 1 In the 90s the Icelandic government contracted DeCODE Genetics as the monopolistic provider of genome testing in order to prevent fragmentation in genetic data libraries, so as to aggregate more genomes to better inform resource allocation for drug production. But in the wrong hands, the government could put this information towards policy measures that might vaguely resemble eugenics-based methods of control. There are pros and cons that have yet to be decided.
Re: 2 Supposing that physicians have access to patients' genomes, the matter arises of if and when to divulge information regarding their liability for certain diseases. The default should be to give the patient the right to any amount of information. The actual amount of this information to be shared by the physician, however, should be determined on a case-by-case basis through a conversation between the physician and the patient in question. The true litmus test for this question is the net benefit to the patient. Supposing that a patient is at low risk for a disease and the treatment for this disease would be expensive and time-consuming, a physician would most likely be less inclined to divulge this liability, but there are still no standards of disclosure- we’ll see what happens.
Re: 3 We’ve already banned insurers and employers from mandating genetic testing, so the closest analogue seems to be the relationship between a parent or guardian and a child. There is precedent that caretakers in a better position to make decisions for a minor or impaired individual should be given the ability to do so. Still, the issue remains of how parents will react to the results of testing. It’s likely that sequencing a baby's genome will eventually become a legal requirement for newborns much like a birth certificate, but until that point the question of who decides and pays for genome sequencing remains.
All things considered, I say fuck it- the legal infrastructure will catch up with personalized medicine and the genetic testing companies and drug manufacturers already making use of the information will be in the best position to take advantage of it. Paddle early.
The issue I have with all this is-- in what sense is my DNA not public information?
1) Intellectual property in general is considered to be things that I, you know, thought of; my genetic code is the result of a physical process between my parents that I had absolutely no input into. If anyone owns it, they do. Of course, it was a derivative product of their genetic code, which they really had no claim to in the first place.
2) I leave complete copies of my DNA lying around everywhere I go, and on everything I touch. Maybe not in quantities that can be sequenced, yet, but it's there. Granted that I have ownership (and then some) over my own body, does that really continue to apply to the bits I discard in your foyer without noticing or caring?
I understand there are political issues that transcend this, but it feels like a case where politics is fighting a losing battle against physics.
the ethical issues were highlighted for me when, during the discussion, the business of fitness was noted as being orthogonal to the institution of medicine. I got an image in my head of uber-shiny, more-or-less immortal rich kids with awesome super-sneakers against a backdrop of global poverty.
