News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Founder-driven life sciences companies by est31 on Saturday July 04, 2020 @07:31PM (#23735604)
One of the reasons why biotech has so low success is that we see it as kinda ok to unleash a half tested app onto people, basically most startup apps out there, while new drugs are extremely hard to get tested.

It's kinda understandable given that some drugs can have serious negative long term effects on people, whereas a buggy CRUD app can't really do much harm in comparison.

While the costs of a "buggy" drug are usually larger than the cost of a buggy app, the benefits of a "good" drug are usually larger than the benefit of yet another app to share pictures, or a uber but for X.

Just see how much it costs to save the economy just from the corona measures. The opposite of that is the benefit of a 1 year increase of people's healthy life spans, much more in fact as only parts of the economy were shut down.

Re:Founder-driven life sciences companies by neilv on Saturday July 04, 2020 @08:22PM (#23735803)
I think "move fast, and break things" isn't as catchy, when it's harder to ignore that "things" being broken are often people.
Re:Founder-driven life sciences companies by jamestimmins on Saturday July 04, 2020 @08:40PM (#23735863)
Yeah "move fast and kill people" doesn't have the same ring to it
Re:Founder-driven life sciences companies by somurzakov on Saturday July 04, 2020 @10:36PM (#23736240)
modern pharma R&D is pretty much move fast and break things. All modern pharma firms spend enourmous effort to ensuring that errors are cought as early as possible (shift left) in R&D. Hundreds of molecule candidates are discarded before reaching Phase 3 trials
Re:Founder-driven life sciences companies by Eridrus on Sunday July 05, 2020 @08:47AM (#23738274)
Most of the cost in pharma trials is not due to safety testing, it is in testing whether it is effective and whether it is better than the competition.

I'm not really involved in pharma, but there seems to be a decent argument for selling the drug with provisional approval after safety has been established and collecting outcomes data for those who use provisional drugs https://reason.com/2018/02/02/right-to-try-fda-drug-trials/

Re:Founder-driven life sciences companies by est31 on Saturday July 04, 2020 @08:28PM (#23735829)
Spot on.
Re:Founder-driven life sciences companies by Eridrus on Sunday July 05, 2020 @08:29AM (#23738199)
I don't think this comparison holds up. In software, the reason to release something early is because it is hard to tell if there is demand for what you have built and getting feedback from the market is vital.

In pharma, I think the success criteria are much better understood, but it's just really hard to do what people want.

Not so say our regulatory system isn't a shitshow that needs reform, but I don't think there is the same benefit of releasing buggy versions.

Having said that, there are a lot of arguments for reforming how we do later stage clinical trials to provide access to potentially life saving drugs as well as reducing the costs of drug development https://reason.com/2018/02/02/right-to-try-fda-drug-trials/