An Intel Approach to Meds | Newsweek Health

A Research Revolution

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

How do the two industries deal with failure?
When I started Intel we couldn't make a device twice in a row in the same way. I earned my reputation by being part of a team that figured out why a thing was not reproducible, what you need to do to make results come out the same way twice in a row. The attitude [in high-tech] is, something went wrong for a reason, let's find the gold nugget. In 1970, Dov Frohman [at Intel] was investigating insulator leakage, and it led him to invent a brand-new device that is now a fundamental building block of cellphones, cameras, MP3 players and computers. But in pharma, if a clinical trial doesn't work--which means the average of all the patient responses is not better than the average of a placebo treatment--they just throw [the drug] away, when in fact the averages may hide stuff that did work, and something that made patients different [such as genetics]. I've never heard anyone talk about the opportunity costs of a good drug being thrown away. But a good drug wrongfully convicted means the loss of benefits goes on forever.

What stands in the way of more and faster success in getting cures to patients?
The peer review system in grant making and in academic advancement has the major disadvantage of creating conformity of thoughts and values. It's a modern equivalent of a Middle Ages guild, where you have to sing a particular way to get grants, promotions and tenure. The pressure to conform [to prevailing ideas of what causes diseases and how best to find treatments for them] means you lose the people who want to get up and go in a different direction. There is no place for the wild ducks. The result is more sameness and less innovation. What we need is a cultural revolution in the research community, academic and non-academic. We need to give wild ducks the opportunity to emerge and quack their way to success. But cultural change can be driven only by action at the top.

I suppose this topic has now gone cold. But for any latecomers (and definitely for Andy Grove himself) you can look at the new article by Paul Albert over on Bacteriality.com:

http://bacteriality.com/2007/12/11/opensource/

I think Paul has a very good point. The 'correct' model for the medical research community to use is not the Semiconductor Industry one, although that was a good first take on the subject -- it is the Open Source Software movement method that should be followed. Paul goes on to give an example of an Open Source Clinical trial as well to prove his point. (The point being that the trial is actually finding cures -- and quickly). If other clinical researchers (especially ones with deep pockets) could take the info and run with it for other illnesses (in parallel with the current ones being worked on) who knows how quickly a lot of them could be also put in the 'cure' bin? There is no reason right now that other researchers in say, MS, or ALS or Alzheimers fields could not also jump on this same bandwagon and attempt similar trials using the same protocol -- they just have not and will not give it a try -- it is hard to turn that giant medical establishment tanker in a new direction very quickly. Sad but true.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: symmecon @ 11/04/2008 6:21:21 AM

Comment: One way to look for a timely model for medical research on a molecular level would be to find the motion filed in U.S. District (NM) Court of 04/02/01, titled The Solution to the Equation of Schrodinger. It leads to the U.S. copyright TXu1-266-788, which presents the grand unified topological model of the atom as a picoyoctotechnical interactive point map for all particles, fields, and waves.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: angelface @ 12/22/2007 9:54:33 PM

Learn more about investing by visiting investmentsforme.com
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: jimbbb @ 12/14/2007 2:45:01 PM

I suppose this topic has now gone cold. But for any latecomers (and definitely for Andy Grove himself) you can look at the new article by Paul Albert over on Bacteriality.com:

http://bacteriality.com/2007/12/11/opensource/

I think Paul has a very good point. The 'correct' model for the medical research community to use is not the Semiconductor Industry one, although that was a good first take on the subject -- it is the Open Source Software movement method that should be followed. Paul goes on to give an example of an Open Source Clinical trial as well to prove his point. (The point being that the trial is actually finding cures -- and quickly). If other clinical researchers (especially ones with deep pockets) could take the info and run with it for other illnesses (in parallel with the current ones being worked on) who knows how quickly a lot of them could be also put in the 'cure' bin? There is no reason right now that other researchers in say, MS, or ALS or Alzheimers fields could not also jump on this same bandwagon and attempt similar trials using the same protocol -- they just have not and will not give it a try -- it is hard to turn that giant medical establishment tanker in a new direction very quickly. Sad but true.