Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

A cancer "moonshot" failed


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1
funkervogt

funkervogt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,015 posts

 

In 2016, the biotech billionaire Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong set himself a deadline: By 2020, he would transform the fight against cancer.

 
With the help of a coalition of big-name companies, researchers, and physicians, Soon-Shiong vowed, he would enroll 20,000 cancer patients in clinical trials and develop an effective vaccine to treat the disease.
 
Four years later, independent medical researchers say they’ve heard virtual radio silence from Soon-Shiong’s initiative. And a review by STAT of clinical trial listings, research presentations, and press releases suggests the effort has fallen far short of its major goals. 

https://www.statnews...ancer-moonshot/



#2
Cyber_Rebel

Cyber_Rebel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  • LocationNew York

Feel like this is one of those issues where Artificial Intelligence will be immensely helpful. An advanced enough A.I. "taught" or having learned about a disease could come at the issue from many different angles than a typical researcher could. Much less time too, especially if pooled together with several other A.I. all working towards the same goal. 

 

Shame that the prior initiative failed, but this decade or the next will see advances in A.I. gene therapy, and CRISPR so the next major cancer cure initiative may yield better results.



#3
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,244 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

Something tells me further advances in nanotechnology especially in the nanorobotics field will be the deciding factor. It will take something that is intelligent, is small enough, and displays the requisite dexterity to the point it does a better job of disassembling cancerous cells than any immune cell can.

 

That alone may not be enough. The robots may need the ability to predict what cancerous cells will do to evade and mutate in this new environment of being under constant barrage from the robots.


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#4
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,980 posts

It's interesting how a few days after you posted this news of the progress we are making with our fight against cancer emerged. https://qz.com/17831...ount-in-the-us/

 

We don't have to rely on a Moonshot but we certainly have to continue to pour resources at the problem. Obviously focusing on anti aging research would lower the incidence of cancer in the first place so it would seem to be important to focus on that as well.


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#5
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,386 posts

Something tells me further advances in nanotechnology especially in the nanorobotics field will be the deciding factor. It will take something that is intelligent, is small enough, and displays the requisite dexterity to the point it does a better job of disassembling cancerous cells than any immune cell can.

 

That alone may not be enough. The robots may need the ability to predict what cancerous cells will do to evade and mutate in this new environment of being under constant barrage from the robots.

 

On the whole, I think this is a very good post. However, I do take exception to the need for the nanorobots to be "intelligent."  Of course, part of the problem may be in how one defines "intelligent."  Still, I think such nanorobots only need to be able to respond in an appropriate manner to certain kinds of stimuli.

 

Chemicals do not need to be "intelligent" to interact with each other in a predictable and appropriate way.  Neither would nanorobots in order to interact with cancer cells.  At least not in IMHO.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users