tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post5619053511650794545..comments2024-03-18T06:11:04.848-07:00Comments on The Curious Wavefunction: Peter Thiel on biotechnology again: "Get rid of the randomness"Wavefunctionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-30173763002096403562015-09-18T12:05:08.581-07:002015-09-18T12:05:08.581-07:00I would not be so harsh. Some of the great discove...I would not be so harsh. Some of the great discoveries in biology over the past 50 years have come from physicists and mathematicians. The level of rigor in analysis, model building, and hypothesis testing that is second nature in physics is still not a way of life in biology, at least the part that I am exposed to. I see way too many unsuccessful experiments attributed to bad batches of chemicals, way too many graphs purporting to establish trends without error bars (often because replicates and proper controls were never run), and way too many fickle systems where the variability is assumed to be uncontrollable even when it is clear (to a physicist) that there are parameters that need to be controlled but are difficult to do so. The control problems in biology are orders of magnitude more difficult than physics but they are not impossible to tackle.<br /><br />I believe that Andy Grove's "rants" are along the latter lines. The semiconductor industry has spent decades learning about minute things that matter and learning how to control them. The biotech industry has been lazy in this respect because nature is so tolerant of sloppiness - enzymes do their magic even when exposed to variability that would make most physics experiments worthless. There is a lot that biotech can learn in that respect.<br /><br />This cuts both ways. There is plenty of arrogance to go around on both sides of the debate. Those who do end up making an impact outside their field tend to be the humble ones. GroovyGeekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02461907290773954635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-46591573518264208802015-09-14T13:25:37.503-07:002015-09-14T13:25:37.503-07:00Well said. I agree that the private sector with it...Well said. I agree that the private sector with its emphasis on the next quarter will always have a bias toward ignoring important randomness and trying to tame that which is best left unfettered and free. However a select few companies like Google might be taking the long view.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-70953538239245329412015-09-14T12:51:39.704-07:002015-09-14T12:51:39.704-07:00This common thinking of investors in biotech makes...This common thinking of investors in biotech makes for one sobering conclusion: Only government can invest in basic research completely blindfold, knowing that randomness and accidental discoveries will eventually pay off in the long run. <br /><br />Sadly, government and grant agencies are more and more thinking like venture capital firms wanting to predict discoveries and get a quick return on their investments. There is plenty of evidence that randomness is a good thing and many of our major breakthroughs have been a result of accident. Unfortunately, we are obsessed with quick results and are trapped in a cycle of short term thinking. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-51395041825016914772015-09-13T18:47:10.678-07:002015-09-13T18:47:10.678-07:00Just a typical example of smugness emanating from ...Just a typical example of smugness emanating from physicists and computer people who understand too little biology. There is never a shortage of them because the fact that the past 50+ years have consistently proven them wrong does not deter most of them. DKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04761138604438222762noreply@blogger.com