Peter Thiel's Startup Class 16 Notes: Decoding Ourselves
blakemasters.tumblr.com
blakemasters.tumblr.com
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!
See: http://craphound.com/walh/Cory_Doctorow_-_With_a_Little_Help...
I'm confused.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't understand how he gets 2^n. anyone else?
(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.)
Example: if you have one, she hires 2, those 2 hire 2 each. You have 1+2+4 = 7 = 8 - 1 = 2^3 - 1
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
'Bioinformatics and Functional Genomics
Just one anecdote, but I notice a cycle between tech-social and tech-bio. Time for the pendulum to swing again?
Thank you.
Richard