
Eroom's law - doener
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroom%27s_law
======
alpos
As much as I'd like to avoid criticizing "moore's law", this is a good example
of why we shouldn't be using the term unless the effect described is a
properly scientific description of a universal truth.

Both of these statements are mere observations of trends (short term ones in
the grand scheme of things). Nothing about the trends observed in "eroom's
law" must hold true in the future and, similarly, nothing about the trends
observed in "moore's law" must remain true in the future.

There are no causal links behind either of these "laws", nothing to make them
universally applicable throughout time. Indeed, both are stated as functions
of time with an implied start date. These qualities make both mere
observations of trends rather than proper scientific laws.

In the case of Moore's "law" the implied outcome seems optimistic and I think
that is why we have so far given a pass on calling it a "law". In the case of
Eroom's "law" the implied outcome is much more pessimistic so I am betting
that we'll be unlikely to want to recognize it. However, if we accept Moore's
observation as a "law", we'll have a hard time pointing to a distinction that
prevents Eroom's observation from being a "law".

In my opinion, the right answer is to stop implying that either of these
observations are inevitable or representative of a truth about the universe.
Then we can properly recognize that both trends are easily subject to
disruption through hard work and breakthroughs in related fields, or the lack
thereof.

~~~
amelius
> There is no causality in either of these "laws", and that fact makes them
> mere observations of trends rather than proper scientific laws.

There's a lot in science that's mere observation.

The law of gravity is one example, since nobody knows where gravity actually
comes from.

~~~
alpos
Good catch, I had to correct that bit upon re-reading. What I am truly aiming
at is the quality of universality (applicability throughout time and space)
that these observations lack.

With gravity we see a principle which, when mathematically described in
sufficient detail, is consistent throughout space and time. What we know of
it, we know only due to the observations we can make locally and in our
timeline thus far; however, even with such a limited view, we can already see
that gravity very likely is as it has always been and is the same throughout
the universe. This is certainly not true of neither Moore's law nor Eroom's
law.

~~~
amelius
I see. Another angle is that Moore's and Eroom's laws describe man-made
processes (which are thus not universally applicable throughout time), just
like e.g. economic laws describe man-made processes.

------
nxc18
Very interesting.

Anyone know if this applies to antibiotics? I think a lot of people, myself
included, are hoping that new drugs will buy us enough time to solve the
sociatal problems (e.g. heavy use in ag) causing antibiotic resistance.

~~~
ShannonAlther
Yes, it does. More or less every class of antibiotic was invented between 1940
and 1960. Discoveries since that period have been mostly incremental.

~~~
haZard_OS
The only exception I am aware of is this recent discovery :

[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14098](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14098)

Note that the paper isn't only about a new antibiotic but also about a
promising method for making additional discoveries via uncultured bacteria.

~~~
88e282102ae2e5b
Also this:
[http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)31451-4](http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674\(17\)31451-4)

------
scottie_m
I’ve heard a theory that says the era of small molecules targeting single
complexes is probably on the sharply downward slope of an asymptote. If we’re
lucky that will just mean new therapies which target complex systems rather
than single-drug-targets is in sight. If we’re unlucky there will be a harsh
gap between the two eras.

~~~
cassowary37
Well, I think it's true that traditionally folks trying to do rational drug
discovery are better at targeting certain proteins (cell surface receptors;
some enzymes) with small molecules than others. Also true that first
generation of most drugs were discovered serendipitously and only later was
mechanism understood. BUT - notion that we're at the sharp downward slope
would be a surprise to most pharmas and biotechs. While there's more of an
emphasis on understanding entire pathways rather than single proteins, it's
still generally the goal to find a single place in the pathway where a small
molecule (or antibody, or whatever) will act. It's also /really/ hard to
disrupt protein-protein interactions, though it's possible.

~~~
cassowary37
And forgot to mention that there's all sorts of very cool new tools coming -
one of my favorites is this one for targeted protein degradation:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28223226](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28223226)

------
trhway
sounds like NASA and governmental space programs. I mean it feels like the
cost and complexity of, for example, flying to Moon has been doubling each
decade or so since the original Apollo days and have reached today the levels
of practical impossibility. (And that state of things set the stage for Musk).

~~~
jopsen
I fear it's the willingness to make massive public investments that has
dwindled.

Going to space was never cheap, and I doubt it has ever been cheaper than it
is today

------
cinquemb
Part of me wonders if things could improve if the resources put towards "drug
discovery" could go further if they were allocated to tooling to allow for
individuals to synthesize drugs tailored to their present state.

With increasingly more data available on the drugs released by FDA, EMA, etc,
combined with cheap genetic sequencing and other measurements, part of me
wonders if the statistical approaches with some sub fields of chemistry
combined with bioinformatics could move things from the era where certain
drugs are produced in mass to one where getting certain interactions with
compounds to take place based on and individuals state.

Razib Kahn talks[0] about this recently:

"There’s a debate that periodically crops up online about the utility,
viability, and morality of returning results from genetic tests to consumers.
Consumers here means people like you or me. Pretty much everyone.

If you want to caricature two stylized camps, there are information
maximalists who proclaim a utopia now, where people can find out so much about
themselves through their genome. And then there are information elitists, who
emphasize that the public can’t handle the truth. Or, more accurately, that
throwing information without context and interpretation from someone who knows
better is not just useless, it’s dangerous.

Of course, most people will stake out more nuanced complex positions. That’s
not the point. Here is my bottom-line, which I’ve probably held since about
~2010:

    
    
        - The value for most people in actionable information in direct-to-consumer genetics is probably not there yet when set against the cost.
        - With the reduction in the cost of genotyping and sequencing, there’s no way that we have enough trained professionals to handle the surfeit of information. And there will really be no way in 10 years when a large proportion of the American population will be sequenced.

"

[0][https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/04/10/notes-from-the-
per...](https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/04/10/notes-from-the-personal-
genomic-inflection-point/)

------
mannykannot
Moore's law was quite an outlier in the history of technology, and one thing
that kept it going is that the returns kept up with the cost of the
increasingly complex technology that it demanded.

The paragraph that dismisses the 'low hanging fruit' explanation of Eroom's
law looks rather weak to me - it says there are still many potential targets,
but does not consider their technical feasibility, cost or potential ROI.

------
hackeraccount
To some degree isn't this expected? I mean, if real gdp growth is 1 or 2
percent per year why wouldn't some of that go to drug prices? Plus, why
wouldn't this just be a preference thing?

I think the underlying assumption is that more money is being spent for drugs
that are equivalent. Is that reasonable or provable assumption?

------
dankohn1
This was a superb Wikipedia article and clever name. I particularly like the
Beatle's reference.

------
doener
„The cost of developing a new drug roughly doubles every nine years.[1]“

Via
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xu86bYKVmRE](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xu86bYKVmRE)

