I'd first run across this decades ago in the context of FDA drugs trials, in which adverse incidents were noted. My understanding at the time was that certain chemotherapies tended to interfere with skin regeneration, particularly in areas subject to high wearing (hands, feet, elbows), or rapid replacement (particularly mucous membranes, lips and mouth especially).
Not all chemotherapies are brutal, but some can be quite fiendish, and quality of life is a legitimate consideration when considering whether to proceed with treatment. Informed decisionmaking and consent in a context where expertise is rare and clinicians don't directly experience the adverse effects is difficult at best.
You are excluding most government and charity funding into medical research.
VC funding includes firms inside of the medical industry, but also companies operating across most of the economy. It’s not just IT, but food, solar, EV’s, rockets, etc.
I'm happy to see corrections with citations. I'd posted what information I could find.
I found your original dismissal without any documentation unsatisfactory, and wanted to quantify overall rather than specific-firm-instance funding. And you're still not providing any citations for your claims.
I suspect that the overall spend going into AI / adtech / digital media is disproportionately large relative to pharma spending. Particularly given the relative social benefits of each. I'd like to be able to make an evidence-based assessment rather than just a gut feel, however.
Clear breakouts of total investment spend by sector are hard to find, presumably much of the accurate information is paywalled. However from a Bain report I'd turned up earlier:
AI pulled in about half of all US venture funding in the fourth quarter, with investment spanning infrastructure, model training platforms, and AI-native developer tools.
Other significant sectors include, presumably in order, "robotics, AI, semiconductors, and Web3 sectors", and "Early-stage activity was strengthened by AI, robotics, defense tech, and biotech". All of which suggests that biotech is a small fraction of the overall total, and new drug discovery a smaller fraction of that.
Total US pharmaceutical industry R&D spend per a 2021 Congressional Budget Office report was $83 billion.
US federally-funded medical research largely occurs through the National Institutes of Health, which has an annual budget of $48 billion. I'd be quite surprised if state-level and other countries' spend doubled that. It increases my earlier figure by about 20%, which isn't nothing, but pales next to the venture tech investment. Again, that's all medical spending, not limited to new drug discovery.
As the previously-cited CBO report notes: "Much of that [NIH] funding has supported basic research (in genomics, molecular biology, and other life sciences) that has identified new disease mechanisms." So, not strictly new drug discovery, though not entirely unrelated either.
Most new drug discovery is likely not venture-backed, so considering my top-line $400 billion vs. $200 billion still seems to point to a roughly-appropriate comparison ratio. If anything, further research suggests the $200 billion value for pharma is probably high-side when it comes to drugs.
The 425B VC numbers are global, and again include some medical funding 25B in 2024, so ~25B in 2025 seems reasonable thus non medical VC at 400B flat is a reasonable number. https://dealroom.co/guides/healthtech-guide
“In the US, the federal government, private companies, universities, states, associations, and philanthropic foundations collectively invest more than $245 billion (PDF)Note 2 in medical research each year. https://unbreaking.org/issues/medical-research-funding/
That suggest the numbers work out to global non medical VC funding at 400B vs 500B for medical research globally.
I’m not saying these numbers are particularly accurate, and they aren’t limited to drug research, but it does provide a different perspective.
PS: As to US federal funding of medical research quite a lot is sitting in the tax code rather than being handed out as grants, it’s not directly relevant. Except it rather inflates what companies label as medical R&D. This makes my position worse, but I bring it up because the actual numbers are dependent on how you interpret what’s going on. Do we include VC funding that’s essentially a private sale of equity from the founders to investors which doesn’t provide the company money? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The operative term isn't simply "survival" but "survival time", that is, the time, post-diagnosis, a patient cohort may be expected to survive on average. It is a term of art.
It's also meaningful insofar as extended survival time suggests progress against the disease mechanism. This may not mean long-term survival for present sufferers of this particular disease, but may suggest future research which is more promising, or if this route hits a wall on any additional outcomes improvements, limitations to this approach. The advance of knowledge is a benefit, regardless of ultimate patient outcomes.
(Where the trade-off in knowledge gains vs. patient outcomes lies is yet another realm of medical ethics.)
Language-lawyering the term is however specious. If you want to comment on quality of life or other matters, those are separate and meritorious discussions. You're embarking on them in a manner that's not likely to be especially conducive however.
Though by that metric, all of written history is 300 generations (6,000 years), of modern humans about 30,000 generations. About 100,000 generations separate us from chimpanzees.
But yes, our timescale is pretty short by that measure.
The 12 for me has a very strong appeal as a smartphone / tablet replacement.
I've had smartphones and/or tablets for approaching 20 years now, and they've always struck me as very frustrating compromises. Mostly Android, but some use of iOS as well, and yes, the OS (in both cases) is fundamental to the limitations.
I've also used MacOS heavily (I'm on it now), and I don't like it, relative to Linux.
The Framework Laptop 12 is smaller than my most recent tablet (a 13.3" e-ink), though somewhat more massive. It frees myself from a plethora of Android limitations, crapware, inconsistencies, and the non-repairability of the hardware itself (presently an issue). It gives a real-computer experience, with some compromises for size, but I'm pretty sure that's a net win.
Paired with a limited-feature phone and possibly a few dedicated devices for specific uses (camera, audio recorder), I'm good.
And the 12 should provide an easy decade of service.
KaiOS, based on Android Open Source Programme (AOSP) and the former Firefox OS usually further simplified. May or may not include crapware on devices. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KaiOS>.
Series 30+ OS (S30+), an Nokia / HMD branded mobile OS based on earlier Nokia operating systems, confusingly Series 30 (2001--2014) and Series 40 (2002--2014). Systems are preloaded with the Opera browser and Facebook app. (Latter is a dealbreaker for me.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_30%2B>.
For those looking for a minimised attack surface, this is disheartening.
I'm ... torn by multiple apathies.
- Many of the phones are expensive particularly for specs. Given low production volumes, sales friction, and lack of co-branding / data mining, this is somewhat understandable.
- For those seeking privacy and distraction-free experiences, devices are often compromised in frustrating ways. I'd prefer a monochrome display, for example, and highly robust call-screening / curtailing features (there are very few people who should be able to contact me). I don't want social media and app preloads, outside a very limited set.
- Devices often have frustrating technical limitations. The Punkt mp02 for example, fails to support most North American mobile networks. Punkt's most recent release is far more a full-featured smartphone, which suggests an abandonment of the firm's earlier ethos.
- Phones with features I find more appealing are often straight out of China, which raises its own host of concerns. Of course, pretty much all phones are built in China, or source Chinese-made parts, so that may well be a moot point. Even given that, compatibility of those devices with other country's mobile networks is a concern.
On call management: I'm pretty convinced I don't want to be be generally reachable by World+Dog, and expect to have quite robust features for limiting / rejecting calls. Ultimately this might best be done by having a full-featured VOIP relay which is my primary number, with select calls forwarded to my mobile. The latter would only accept calls from the first system. The VOIP system would have its own ruleset for accepting, rejecting, directing to voicemail/messaging, or in very rare cases, forwarding, calls.
Pretty much all other smartphone features I'd prefer accessing on a small-form-factor, flexible, full-function laptop. Framework Laptop 12 seems to be the best choice for this.
For dedicated image / video / audio capture, dedicated devices. I've had an e-book reader and find that this, dedicated to that and directly-related tasks alone is preferable to a smartphone. I still have many frustrations with extant e-book reader offerings (most fail abysmally at organising a significant library), but that's another story.
For those confused by this and a few similar threads/comments: the project name was originally "biff", but that was changed apparently due to the discussion on this submission, which has been retitled.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy-induced_acral_ery...>
I'd first run across this decades ago in the context of FDA drugs trials, in which adverse incidents were noted. My understanding at the time was that certain chemotherapies tended to interfere with skin regeneration, particularly in areas subject to high wearing (hands, feet, elbows), or rapid replacement (particularly mucous membranes, lips and mouth especially).
Not all chemotherapies are brutal, but some can be quite fiendish, and quality of life is a legitimate consideration when considering whether to proceed with treatment. Informed decisionmaking and consent in a context where expertise is rare and clinicians don't directly experience the adverse effects is difficult at best.
reply