Gill Eapen's Blog, page 67
June 5, 2012
Time to converge
The adoption of advanced computer technologies in drug discovery and development has been slow. The techniques that have been prevalent in engineering for many decades – modeling, simulation, analytics, machine learning and algorithmic predictions – had taken a second seat in drug R&D as educated guesswork and blind luck seem to have dominated (1). The reasons are unclear but it appears that for over two decades, scientists had too much confidence in their own abilities to navigate through the complex non-linear interactions in biological entities and pick winners and losers.
The results have been disastrous. Decision quality – the ability to consider all available information at the point of decision – has been dismal in this industry as human brains, albeit being logically superior to computers, are prone to biases and suffer from a lack of capacity to hold a large number of interacting variables. This is a tough message for those who have taken immense pride in moving R&D programs along by sheer intuition and experience. They made selection decisions based on a few observed characteristics and historical biases. They made design decisions based on a few industry standard templates and they largely shunned portfolio management as not useful. In the process, the economics of the R&D machine deteriorated under heavy attrition and cost overruns.
It is time to think differently and borrow heavily from other industries. The fact that pharmaceutical R&D is regulated and that it is dealing with systems not driven by engineering design principles are not sufficient reasons not to consider available tools. Continuing down the well-trodden path is not going to make things any better soon.
(1) Molecular matchmaking for drug discovery. Phys.Org. June 5, 2012
May 18, 2012
The algorithm hype
Algorithms, by the way, are nothing new. Engineers and scientists have “stumbled upon” them in many of their rather ordinary pursuits of life and career. In the last two decades, Physicists, bored out of their wits looking for strings and extra dimensions, headed out to the street that houses most of the brain cells in the world, in hot pursuit of “algorithms” to predict the unpredictable. What they found made them money sometimes that they lost in others. The behemoths of the Silicon Valley found patterns in searches and faces – to fully extrapolate the future – in sheer pretense. For most from the past, rules are passé’ and intelligence is never an accumulation of such constructs, brute forced through big machines, bigger pipes and software containers.
The hype is ripe, the bubble is full – and just like any other since the advent of humanity, it is likely to burst.
(1) Google goes cancer: Researchers use search engine algorithm to find cancer biomarkers. Published: Friday, May 18, 2012 - 09:34 in Health & Medicine.Source: Public Library of Science
May 14, 2012
Exotica
The Chandra observatory’s latest discovery (1), quickly named the ULX (ultra luminous X-Ray source) by creative physicists, shows the futility of analysis in the absence of a framework. In the last two decades, scientists have measured black holes of all sizes and shapes – without a clear understanding of what a black hole is. They have found radiations of all intensities and modalities, without a clear explanation of what the source is. They have found brightness of these sources waxing and waning without a clear comprehension of why. They have found companions and goblins to these exotic phenomena, as often as a good story teller at bedtime.
Is this really science or is it fiction? Discovery appears to dominate invention in contemporary science. With a powerful enough telescope, any PhD seeking young student can observe any phenomena she can reasonably imagine as long as she can “book the time,” on the big machines. In a universe of sufficient size, affording a framework of ignorance, one can conceive exotic phenomena, satisfying the highest level of imagination. But the observation of inexplicable objects is not science – a picture of it could quality as art, but nothing more. The degradation of Physics into observations, deliberate naming of incomprehensible phenomena and the nurturing of the particle zoo, has to stop.
It is time to redefine science – Invention should be much more important than discovery, for the later is a figment of one’s imagination, attempting to adhere to the status quo. Let’s change the framework and not try to fit an octagonal peg into a square hole.
(1) NASA's Chandra sees remarkable outburst from old black hole. : Chandra X-ray Observatory
May 12, 2012
MHz
It is often forgotten that biological entities are electromagnetic and chemical systems and this has resulted in a biased focus on the treatment of diseases by chemical means. A recent finding (1) that different parts of the brain work at different but finely tuned frequencies is a reminder that Science has not focused on the electromagnetic aspects of diagnosis and treatment, sufficiently. The belated convergence of engineering and medicine may finally pave the way toward a more robust understanding of biological systems with beneficial effects in many different dimensions.
The unwise separation of diagnostics and treatment have led to localized and inefficient specializations of discovery and development. With accelerating convergence in many different areas, it is difficult to separate gene based predictions, continuous monitoring leading to early diagnosis, exception based screening, reducing false positive and negatives and finally treatment modalities that are optimal for electromagnetic-chemical systems. The goal cannot be tactical remedies but the improvement of health and utility at a grand scale.
The network effect of improved health has significant implications for future societal designs. This cannot be accomplished by 400 year old traditional pharmaceuticals. It is time we moved beyond mass manufactured fixed dose chemicals that work for the average but does not work optimally for anybody. Both customization and completeness are in the cards for future medicine. Those who can lead this will win. Those, clinging to status-quo, should close shop and move on.
(1) Multiple thought channels may help brain avoid traffic jams.Published: Monday, May 7, 2012 - 11:34 in Health & Medicine. Source: Washington University School of Medicine
May 9, 2012
Positive externality
A recent analysis (1) demonstrates that consumers make bad decisions in the presence of a cap on their internet use – either by price or by capacity. As politicians make plans to establish mining colonies on the Moon and policy-makes look to improve economic growth, they are forgetting something that is much more fundamental and easier to solve. Internet – likely the only invention in the last 50 years - interconnects the 7 billion people on the small planet, yielding significant benefits to society in many areas – increased innovation and productivity due to higher participation, reduced costs due to larger pools of labor and capital availability and improved understanding of diverse cultures and countries, reducing social tension, defense spending and other non-value added activities.
The terrestrial internet is inefficient and it is time countries and other international organizations seriously thought about making it global and satellite based. I think the World can wait a few more years to know if the “God particle,” exists – what’s much more important now is to get the scientists, technologists an policy-makers to come together to solve this problem. The investments needed are minuscule compared to the societal benefits that will be delivered by a free and globally available internet. Anywhere, anytime internet has huge social and economic implications, most of which are positive.
Let’s stop the micro-bickering and macro-grand standing. Let’s get something practical done, now.
(1) Georgia Tech/Microsoft study shows bandwidth caps create user uncertainty, risky decisions. Published: Monday, May 7, 2012 - 11:35 in Mathematics & Economics. Source: Georgia Institute of Technology
May 2, 2012
The data problem
As remarked in a recent paper (1), many are excited at the prospect of exponentially growing data. Supercomputers, faster and fatter pipes to connect the nodes and ever expanding cloud storage are adding to the excitement of the data scientists. It is however, not clear, how expanding data will improve information content and more importantly affect the life of people and the economics of companies and countries. The null hypothesis to test is that expanding data has no effect on the world.
Let’s look at history (2). In business, just two decades ago, many management and information technology consultants concluded that the “singularity,” has already been reached. Enterprise Resource Planning systems will collect and store every piece of available data in the enterprise. It was obvious to many that once all the data is collected, the productivity of the business will improve exponentially. After all, information is in the data and all one has to do is to collect them. Computer manufacturers and database vendors gladly entered the fray – providing ever faster computers and ever larger storage bins – for cheaper prices. For many, the productivity curve was unending – some consultants even predicted infinite profits for their clients.
A few years later, they will do it again – this time it was “business intelligence,” nice platters to cut, dice and present data. The hypothesis was that once managers see the pictures, they will get great insights to drive their companies to ever higher profitability. Now, two decades later, the garbage data most collected is sitting in the basement with little decision utility. The picture makers have vanished and the profitability of the companies are about the same. So what happened? Did collecting, storing and presenting data really help managers run their companies better?
This is good learning for those in academics also. All they have to ask is what significant insights arrived in the last two decades as they swam in the ever expanding data ocean – regressing the heck out of every empirical tidbit. Did they find how markets work? Did they find how medicines can be improved? Did they find how the the universe works? if they did not, then, it should give them pause as the next wave of data moves in like a tsunami and drench every remaining brain cell in their brains.
Data is good – more of it is not necessarily good. Even more, could be bad.
(1) A 100-gigbit highway for science Published: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 10:34 in Mathematics & Economics. Source: DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(2) Flexibility : Flexible Companies for the Uncertain World: Gill Eapen http://www.amazon.com/Flexibility-Flexible-Companies-Uncertain-World/dp/1439816328/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1336001147&sr=8-2
April 29, 2012
Compartmentalization
A recent study (1) claims that analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. The problem is that both analytic thinking and religious disbelief are not well defined terms. Statisticians can find relationships in almost anything, let alone the ones, not well defined. In a world where everybody is striving to put everybody else in neatly defined boxes, these are unfortunate avenues to pursue.
There are many similarities between analytic thinking (a.k.a. the scientific process) and religious beliefs. Religion, indeed, was the fist science, that attempted to explain the unknown and create a structure to promote systemic understanding. Ancient religions are dramatically different from the ones that emerged more recently. In this dimension alone, the authors seem to have a very narrow view in that they attempt to define religious disbelief as related to only modern religions. More importantly, analytic thinking – a very nebulous term – one could argue, is present in any pursuit that is outside the basic needs of a human – such as food, water and reproduction. Religion, philosophy, art, music, literature and science afford many avenues for analytic thinking.
In this respect, most advanced pursuits in the modern world, such as high energy Physics, resemble religion in many respects in that very little is understood and the hypotheses generally are based on belief systems. Both religion and Physics fundamentally dabble in the same questions and neither have concrete answers for them. It is time that we stopped the compartmentalization and labeling – a more satisfying experiment will be the unification of different ideas.
(1) Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief. Will M. Gervais*,
Ara Norenzayan* University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T1Z4, Canada.
April 27, 2012
Interdisciplinary friction
The recent finding (1) that friction plays an important role in protein folding is interesting. It is a reminder that almost everything humans would like to solve comes down to a singular pursuit – Physics. Everything else is noise and those who learn and advance Physics will make important contributions to every contemporary scientific area including medicine, engineering and society. In the last century, scientific disciplines floated apart due to a misconceived need for specialization – some arguing that each discipline is just too complex to be tackled by generalists. Such a process has driven humanity to a standstill with no fundamental innovation forthcoming.
The solution to this stalemate is two pronged. First is the realization that Physics ultimately governs everything – anything else is noise that will take humanity to a myriad of confusing paths with no end in sight. Second, interdisciplinary research is critical – no institution should really be proud of their “focus” in one area or another. What is more important is the ability to connect things together – it does not matter if an organization is great in engineering, medicine or economics. Specialization actually slows down innovation and creativity.
Fundamental solutions to the problems at hand can only come from Physics – but it requires interdisciplinary cooperation. It also requires substantial investment in basic research and applications will follow.
In protein folding, internal friction may play a more significant role than previously thought. Published: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 - 14:24 in Biology & Nature. Source: University of California - Santa Barbara
April 25, 2012
Full circle
Recent research (1) hypothesizes that global nomadism has reduced materialism. This makes sense from multiple perspectives. First, modern nomads generally have a broader experience, that allow them to see the world from a holistic perspective. Second, the most interesting part of the human history – some 50,000 years ago, when innovation and experimentalism were the highest – has always been associated with nomadism.Those who stayed put, were left out in the cold. In this respect, modern nomads are completing the full circle – Humans started off by nomadism and they will ultimately end this story the same way. And finally, nomads value information more than their stationary cousins and in a world where only information remains, they are better positioned to define the future.
One of the recent presidents of the United States took oath without travelling to a single country, except to the adjacent one to the South. That lack of perspective costed the World significantly during his term. In this context, nomadism has to be a necessary requirement of leaders of major organizations and countries. More importantly, for the next generation, it should become clearer that information is more important than material possessions and the only way to collect information is by nomadism – either physically or electronically.
Nomadism was an adventure a few 100 generations ago. For the timid humans of today, it is a necessary condition for survival.
(1) What is contemporary global nomadism and how does it affect materialism?Published: Monday, April 16, 2012 - 13:33 in Mathematics & Economics. Source: University of Chicago Press Journals
April 22, 2012
Supply (down) side
Recent research (1) from Northwestern University argues that the best way to implement climate policy is by buying the extraction rights to dirty fuels such as coal and oil. They argue that the focus, thus far, has been on the demand side – where policies attempt to limit consumption. By buying and holding extraction rights, the authors argue that a coalition can control green house gas emissions to tolerable levels. The motivation has been that non-participating countries in global negotiations on Carbon emissions, circumvent any policies that are put into effect, globally.
This is academic thinking without much relevance. Yes, it is true that a coalition with infinite resources can buy all the dirty deposits of hydrocarbons and summarily solve the problem. It is a bit like religion – where some entity just appears from the heaven to cleanse the world of all its ills. Granted, academics also have such visions but what appears to be obvious on the surface is a band aid to the real problem. The real issue is that the unit of power produced by burning hydrocarbons should be efficiently priced taking all the costs into account. Without a market based control on the demand side – any artificial band aids on the supply side are bound to break. Moreover, certain rising powers have been sequestering dirty hydrocarbons across the world and it is unlikely that such countries, who control half the world’s population, will let that go easily.
It is good to think about creative solutions to the problems at hand. But it is important both to look for an efficient solution as well as something that is practical.
(1) Buy coal? New analysis shows purchasing fossil fuel deposits best way to fight climate change. Published: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 - 21:31 in Mathematics & Economics. Source: University of Chicago Press Journals
