May 15, 2010
Random thought
A social networking site that groups people together by the similarity of their genome, or presence of some protein? Monetize it on the back-end by helping pharma recruit patients for clinical trials, among other things.
Does Health Tweeder suck?
Probably. Don't get me wrong, I certainly find it interesting to quantify how often a certain medical indication is being mentioned on twitter, and I also like how the number of tweets is displayed in a snazzy looking petri dish -
but so what. I can't really act on the sort of content being published.
Pharma would certainly find it useful to know which diseases are being discussed on twitter, since it can help shape the commercialization strategy for a particular brand, but you need to have it tied to metrics in order for it to have real value. For a particular drug brand, it would be interesting to know how many times it is mentioned, but also what is being mentioned. Are people speaking positively, reporting adverse events, slandering the product, etc.
All this said, the concept underlying Health Tweeder I think will continuously expand. Measuring and quantifying search terms (whether indications, brands, etc.) by way of semantic content filtering in web 2.0 platforms will ultimately have an impact on patient care, but we're not there yet.
but so what. I can't really act on the sort of content being published.Pharma would certainly find it useful to know which diseases are being discussed on twitter, since it can help shape the commercialization strategy for a particular brand, but you need to have it tied to metrics in order for it to have real value. For a particular drug brand, it would be interesting to know how many times it is mentioned, but also what is being mentioned. Are people speaking positively, reporting adverse events, slandering the product, etc.
All this said, the concept underlying Health Tweeder I think will continuously expand. Measuring and quantifying search terms (whether indications, brands, etc.) by way of semantic content filtering in web 2.0 platforms will ultimately have an impact on patient care, but we're not there yet.
November 26, 2007
Genetic screening for drug interactions
Students at Purdue University, under the guidance of two professors, are developing an information database that allows for patients to undergo genetic screening and test their predisposition to a host of drugs.
If this sounds familiar, it is because certain therapeutic areas are already cashing in on this, most notably the HIV space with diagnostic phenotypic testing, but what makes this situation different is its proposed broadness-of-use.
Interestingly enough, such an application would have astounding applications during clinical trials and help bring down enormous trial related costs. Further, in the light of personalized medicine, it will enable patients to understand, beforehand, whether they will be benefit or have a negative drug interaction, with a particular agent.
Those working on the technology insist that the read-out information that will ultimately be provided to a pharmacist will not contain your predisposition to other diseases that one may have, but will only provide information relevant enough for treatment with a particular agent. Good news for the consumer!
If this sounds familiar, it is because certain therapeutic areas are already cashing in on this, most notably the HIV space with diagnostic phenotypic testing, but what makes this situation different is its proposed broadness-of-use.
Interestingly enough, such an application would have astounding applications during clinical trials and help bring down enormous trial related costs. Further, in the light of personalized medicine, it will enable patients to understand, beforehand, whether they will be benefit or have a negative drug interaction, with a particular agent.
Those working on the technology insist that the read-out information that will ultimately be provided to a pharmacist will not contain your predisposition to other diseases that one may have, but will only provide information relevant enough for treatment with a particular agent. Good news for the consumer!
November 17, 2007
Google - Technology - Memory (or the lack thereof)
We all know the pro's and con's of the internet, from a humanistic/philosophical perspective - even if this information is not explicit. The internet has the potential to bring us closer together, give us access to information, but like a double edge sword, it can also isolate many of us in the metaphysical realm of pure bits.
Google, wikipedia, and other information resources that are readily accessible have definitely expanded our collective mind - but has it helped with our own memory? Thinking about what it means to know something - (a debate heavily argued amongst philosophers of mind such as Dennett, Block, Searle, and many others) - is much more difficult than we think.
It comes down to accessibility. We know as much as we have access to. I remember having these conversations in college with Professors Hubert Dreyfus (whose book On the Interet: Thinking in Action) and Alva Noe, but now the implications seem a lot more real. Our conversations stemmed along what is really in the mind, what is memory, how is memory depicted/accessed, and what is the relationship between memory and the world around us?
We are allowing technology to eat away at our memory, without even realizing it. When asked a person's phone number, I rarely remember the number by heart, but I say, "Yes, I know it . . .hold on" and I'll proceed to check my phone. We do this a lot without realizing it and not just with phones. Does this mean that we do not know something? Or that we just do not know where to look or search for the information? Strip us from the tools that allow for searching and access, and we are automatically limited by the type of information that we can provide.
As of now, our searching capabilities are limited to devices and locations (phones, computers in certain areas), but this will change as technology is driven forward, how exactly, I am not sure. But it seems like what we know and how we search/access information is going to play a large role in how everything gets done in the future.
The seeds have been planted in the form of mobile search technologies ranging from new generation phones, computers, kiosks, etc. I for one am excited and welcome the future of technology - and I hope that as it integrates with people more, we don't lose our humanity - whatever that means.
Google, wikipedia, and other information resources that are readily accessible have definitely expanded our collective mind - but has it helped with our own memory? Thinking about what it means to know something - (a debate heavily argued amongst philosophers of mind such as Dennett, Block, Searle, and many others) - is much more difficult than we think.
It comes down to accessibility. We know as much as we have access to. I remember having these conversations in college with Professors Hubert Dreyfus (whose book On the Interet: Thinking in Action) and Alva Noe, but now the implications seem a lot more real. Our conversations stemmed along what is really in the mind, what is memory, how is memory depicted/accessed, and what is the relationship between memory and the world around us?
We are allowing technology to eat away at our memory, without even realizing it. When asked a person's phone number, I rarely remember the number by heart, but I say, "Yes, I know it . . .hold on" and I'll proceed to check my phone. We do this a lot without realizing it and not just with phones. Does this mean that we do not know something? Or that we just do not know where to look or search for the information? Strip us from the tools that allow for searching and access, and we are automatically limited by the type of information that we can provide.
As of now, our searching capabilities are limited to devices and locations (phones, computers in certain areas), but this will change as technology is driven forward, how exactly, I am not sure. But it seems like what we know and how we search/access information is going to play a large role in how everything gets done in the future.
The seeds have been planted in the form of mobile search technologies ranging from new generation phones, computers, kiosks, etc. I for one am excited and welcome the future of technology - and I hope that as it integrates with people more, we don't lose our humanity - whatever that means.
23andMe - Genes / What we are / where we'll end up
23andMe is set to begin selling its product/service this coming Monday. Essentially, you provide a saliva sample and in return you are told what your genetic code has predisposed you to.
You think that you are at risk of diabetes, Alzheimer's, perpetually waking up at noon on a Saturday versus waking up at 6am and singing with the birdies? Well now, you can know, in a way, for $999. I believe the price tag is not steep, for the type of information that you can potentially receive -- but to what extent can you really understand predisposition solely based your genetic makeup?
Of course, nurture is known to play a role in our actualization, and although 23andMe does provide information on how lifestyle (eating habits, exercise routine, etc.) can alter your potential for becoming/having disease X, I don't completely buy it - perhaps, I am just more uneasy about what can be done with this information.
How is the information stored? What are the privacy issues surrounding this technology? Not that the founder Anne Wojcicki (Sergey Brin’s wife) has any bad intentions, but the fact that 23andMe received a $3.9MM investment from Google - does make me a bit skeptical.
Overall, I am for the service, but I would be cautious/leery of how that information will be stored/handled/disposed of, etc. And I am just as concerned that people will start to believe that we are ultimately governed by our genetic makeup.
I recommend the book "It Ain't Necessarily So: The Dream of the Human Genome and Other Illusions" by Richard Lewontin for anyone interested in knowing the kind of information and reliability that we ought to place in our genome.
You think that you are at risk of diabetes, Alzheimer's, perpetually waking up at noon on a Saturday versus waking up at 6am and singing with the birdies? Well now, you can know, in a way, for $999. I believe the price tag is not steep, for the type of information that you can potentially receive -- but to what extent can you really understand predisposition solely based your genetic makeup?
Of course, nurture is known to play a role in our actualization, and although 23andMe does provide information on how lifestyle (eating habits, exercise routine, etc.) can alter your potential for becoming/having disease X, I don't completely buy it - perhaps, I am just more uneasy about what can be done with this information.
How is the information stored? What are the privacy issues surrounding this technology? Not that the founder Anne Wojcicki (Sergey Brin’s wife) has any bad intentions, but the fact that 23andMe received a $3.9MM investment from Google - does make me a bit skeptical.
Overall, I am for the service, but I would be cautious/leery of how that information will be stored/handled/disposed of, etc. And I am just as concerned that people will start to believe that we are ultimately governed by our genetic makeup.
I recommend the book "It Ain't Necessarily So: The Dream of the Human Genome and Other Illusions" by Richard Lewontin for anyone interested in knowing the kind of information and reliability that we ought to place in our genome.
Professional social network - Sermo
A colleague sent me a link to a semi new social network called Sermo. It is an online community of physicians that discuss recent advances, medical drugs, and other aspects of patient care.
Although you must be a physician to access the site for free (your medical licence number is asked for and verified) - non physicians are able to join (for a fee) and observe and track physician prescribing behavior for example. Business model - buyers include health care organizations, financial companies (hedge funds, etc.), and governmental/academic organizations.
The American Medical Association signed a multi-year deal with Sermo, and although Sermo (most likely) does not have a large client base, they are expected to hit their 2007 revenue goals of 4-6 million dollars.
Approximately 2/3's of their member list (which consists of approximately 20,000 physicians) is composed of US physicians, but the UK has been showing some increasing numbers. There is a lot more potential for growth despite the fact that the percent of global Internet users who access the site has grown 150% in the last 3months (easy to do when you are starting off very small, however).
I hope for great things and I hope that the inclusion of Pfizer physicians do not cause problems for doctors (who may be swayed to prescribe certain drugs over others) or for the industry (which always seems to have its name on a rap sheet). However, it was the online Sermo community of physicians that wanted industry physicians to join and share information on the network -- so hopefully everything will go well.
My only question - where is the patient version of this?
Although you must be a physician to access the site for free (your medical licence number is asked for and verified) - non physicians are able to join (for a fee) and observe and track physician prescribing behavior for example. Business model - buyers include health care organizations, financial companies (hedge funds, etc.), and governmental/academic organizations.
The American Medical Association signed a multi-year deal with Sermo, and although Sermo (most likely) does not have a large client base, they are expected to hit their 2007 revenue goals of 4-6 million dollars.
Approximately 2/3's of their member list (which consists of approximately 20,000 physicians) is composed of US physicians, but the UK has been showing some increasing numbers. There is a lot more potential for growth despite the fact that the percent of global Internet users who access the site has grown 150% in the last 3months (easy to do when you are starting off very small, however).
I hope for great things and I hope that the inclusion of Pfizer physicians do not cause problems for doctors (who may be swayed to prescribe certain drugs over others) or for the industry (which always seems to have its name on a rap sheet). However, it was the online Sermo community of physicians that wanted industry physicians to join and share information on the network -- so hopefully everything will go well.
My only question - where is the patient version of this?
Wired Magazine Party and Mindball
I attended Wired Magazine's pre store launch party this past Thursday in SoHo. Products ranging from the Wii, to Rockport's shoes with electronic sensors that accomodate to your walking style, to Mindball, were displayed throughout the store.
Mindball (http://www.mindball.se/) was developed in Sweden by the Interactive Institute, and to my knowledge, was only available in the US in museums and science centers -- looks like things are changing. Mindball is a 2 player game that measures your brain activity via a headband, with the aim of moving a center ball across the table over to your oponenets side, and win the game. It was developed with the intent of allowing people to de-stress, relax, and calm down - however, the game can also be played with the intent of becoming overly stressed and bringing the ball over to your side, enabling you to win the game.
The first time I gave it a shot, I lost within 10 seconds as my brain activity was off the charts (literally - there is a tv monitor next to the table that shows you your brain activity, and your opponents as well). But the second time I played, I was much more relaxed coming in and I took deep breathes and thought happy thoughts -I won.
Either way, the night was enjoyable as I perused the latest Wired displayed technology, and had a chance to make my own mojito, as the event was sponsored by Patron. I met some great people, and I look forward to returning back to the store and takinga second look around.
Mindball (http://www.mindball.se/) was developed in Sweden by the Interactive Institute, and to my knowledge, was only available in the US in museums and science centers -- looks like things are changing. Mindball is a 2 player game that measures your brain activity via a headband, with the aim of moving a center ball across the table over to your oponenets side, and win the game. It was developed with the intent of allowing people to de-stress, relax, and calm down - however, the game can also be played with the intent of becoming overly stressed and bringing the ball over to your side, enabling you to win the game.
The first time I gave it a shot, I lost within 10 seconds as my brain activity was off the charts (literally - there is a tv monitor next to the table that shows you your brain activity, and your opponents as well). But the second time I played, I was much more relaxed coming in and I took deep breathes and thought happy thoughts -I won.
Either way, the night was enjoyable as I perused the latest Wired displayed technology, and had a chance to make my own mojito, as the event was sponsored by Patron. I met some great people, and I look forward to returning back to the store and takinga second look around.
November 9, 2007
TrueKnowledge . . . the way search ought to be?
Came across an interesting search engine still in beta called TrueKnowledge. It is a semantic search engine. I am not quite sure how much different it is when compared to still unlaunched powerset or 'smart answers,' but initially it looks pretty cool.
TrueKnowledge utilizes natural language analysis (a simple way of saying that it aims to 'understand' the way we use language in our day to day, real life situations, accounting for human intentions and implicit desires), to provide the searcher with a direct explicit answer. The answers are drawn upon a database system (that I am guessing has to be pretty limited in this early phase) generated by user posted content.
Therefore the extent to which it is able to truly decipher human intent is not necessarily a function of semantic based computing, but on what users post. And the extent to which it is really 'thinking,' I still think is largely up for debate. It would be nice if it gathered information based on intent from both the web itself AND some sort of user generated content, but only time will tell where all of these search engines are going . . .
TrueKnowledge utilizes natural language analysis (a simple way of saying that it aims to 'understand' the way we use language in our day to day, real life situations, accounting for human intentions and implicit desires), to provide the searcher with a direct explicit answer. The answers are drawn upon a database system (that I am guessing has to be pretty limited in this early phase) generated by user posted content.
Therefore the extent to which it is able to truly decipher human intent is not necessarily a function of semantic based computing, but on what users post. And the extent to which it is really 'thinking,' I still think is largely up for debate. It would be nice if it gathered information based on intent from both the web itself AND some sort of user generated content, but only time will tell where all of these search engines are going . . .
November 6, 2007
The mouse that shook the world
"It can run for hours at 20 metres per minute without getting tired. It lives longer, has more sex, and eats more without gaining weight. Could the science that created this supermouse be applied to humans?"
A very interesting article a colleague sent around this morning. Basically, scientist altered a gene sequence in mice that control glucose metabolism (a gene that we humans have as well!), thereby enabling physical activities to become prolonged. This is able to be accomplished by reducing the amount, or rate, of lactic acid buildup in muscles.
The article also mentions that these mice eat twice as much and weigh half of what others mice weigh, and live much longer. This is interesting considering that there is a theory out there stating that a low caloric diet increases longevity - the rationale behind the theory is based on viewing our bodies as biological systems susceptible to physical laws (i.e. entropy), and the less you put into the system, the less that becomes disarrayed.
There is no doubt that genetic engineering has been going on for a while, and our own human curiosity has driven us to mix and match genes from different animals, often times leading to interesting outcomes.
From the article, here's a short list of what has been done so far in this space:
The Beltsville pig
An early experiment involving the insertion of a gene for human growth hormone into pigs to make them grow faster. They suffered severe bone and joint problems and could not walk properly without pain.
Oncomouse
Created by scientists at Harvard. Engineered to develop cancer, it enabled researchers to use it as a model of the disease. It was involved in one of the earliest patent applications on an animal.
Knock-out mice
Probably the most common use of genetically modified animals. The mice have a gene modified or destroyed so that scientists can study the outcome. Has created a revolution in the understanding of mammalian genes.
Spider-silk goats
Spider-silk protein gene is inserted into goats to extract the substance from their milk. The silk is stronger than steel, so could be used in industry.
Spinach pigs
Japanese scientists have created pigs with an added gene from spinach. They say it cuts fat – making them healthier to eat.
Humanised cattle
A range of experiments have tried to introduce important human genes into cattle so that pharmaceutical proteins can be extracted from their milk.
The green pig
Scientists are trying to introduce a bacterial gene into pigs that will make their faeces less toxic, cutting farm pollution.
Although the article does briefly mention that pharmaceutical companies may use this type of information to help less-than-normal patients, but that it would ultimately be unethical to do things like this in humans. My opinion is split on the matter, but here are some pros and cons for genetic engineering in humans.
Pros:
1. Increases our knowledge of gene-gene interactions, potentially leading to novel therapeutics
2. Increases a persons ability to be more fit, or to be pre-determined to be more fit/healthy
Cons:
1. We are not aware of the long term implications of altering gene sequences. For example, although we remove certain parts or add certain sequences, we have no idea what the genetic drift consequences can be. Removing/altering 'junk DNA,' when we are not fully sure as to what its role is, seems a little scary.
One thing is for sure, our ethics/morality/etc. will not prevent such experimentation from occurring, best to do it openly.
A very interesting article a colleague sent around this morning. Basically, scientist altered a gene sequence in mice that control glucose metabolism (a gene that we humans have as well!), thereby enabling physical activities to become prolonged. This is able to be accomplished by reducing the amount, or rate, of lactic acid buildup in muscles.
The article also mentions that these mice eat twice as much and weigh half of what others mice weigh, and live much longer. This is interesting considering that there is a theory out there stating that a low caloric diet increases longevity - the rationale behind the theory is based on viewing our bodies as biological systems susceptible to physical laws (i.e. entropy), and the less you put into the system, the less that becomes disarrayed.
There is no doubt that genetic engineering has been going on for a while, and our own human curiosity has driven us to mix and match genes from different animals, often times leading to interesting outcomes.
From the article, here's a short list of what has been done so far in this space:
The Beltsville pig
An early experiment involving the insertion of a gene for human growth hormone into pigs to make them grow faster. They suffered severe bone and joint problems and could not walk properly without pain.
Oncomouse
Created by scientists at Harvard. Engineered to develop cancer, it enabled researchers to use it as a model of the disease. It was involved in one of the earliest patent applications on an animal.
Knock-out mice
Probably the most common use of genetically modified animals. The mice have a gene modified or destroyed so that scientists can study the outcome. Has created a revolution in the understanding of mammalian genes.
Spider-silk goats
Spider-silk protein gene is inserted into goats to extract the substance from their milk. The silk is stronger than steel, so could be used in industry.
Spinach pigs
Japanese scientists have created pigs with an added gene from spinach. They say it cuts fat – making them healthier to eat.
Humanised cattle
A range of experiments have tried to introduce important human genes into cattle so that pharmaceutical proteins can be extracted from their milk.
The green pig
Scientists are trying to introduce a bacterial gene into pigs that will make their faeces less toxic, cutting farm pollution.
Although the article does briefly mention that pharmaceutical companies may use this type of information to help less-than-normal patients, but that it would ultimately be unethical to do things like this in humans. My opinion is split on the matter, but here are some pros and cons for genetic engineering in humans.
Pros:
1. Increases our knowledge of gene-gene interactions, potentially leading to novel therapeutics
2. Increases a persons ability to be more fit, or to be pre-determined to be more fit/healthy
Cons:
1. We are not aware of the long term implications of altering gene sequences. For example, although we remove certain parts or add certain sequences, we have no idea what the genetic drift consequences can be. Removing/altering 'junk DNA,' when we are not fully sure as to what its role is, seems a little scary.
One thing is for sure, our ethics/morality/etc. will not prevent such experimentation from occurring, best to do it openly.
NY Tech Meetup
NYtechMeetup put on a great event tonight, presenters included:
1. Jeff Han, Perceptive Pixel (awesome, period.)
2. Alex Daley, Microsoft Live Labs' Photosynth (awesome, period.)
3. Sam Lessin, Drop.io ( impermanent online data dump viewable to those allowed)
4. Ryan Spahn, Sleep.FM (wake up to various messages from friends, not so hot!)
5. Ami Vora, The Facebook (discussing new advertising program)
6. David Karp, Tumblr (blogging made easy)
7. Sir Jacob Lodwick, Vimeo (online video platform)
I had a chance to speak to a handful of the presenters, but unfortunately I could not stay as long as I would have hoped.
Perceptive Pixel
Jeff Han described nyu based technology that can best be described by watching the video below. Pretty cool, and although you can buy the technology now, it's going to run you at least 6 figures (anything that is considered military grade, is apparently expensive...hmm)
Microsoft Live Labs' Photosynth is doing something very similar. Also, best explained by the video below.
Facebook discussed their new advertising platform. From what I gathered, there are two main features of this ad based system:
1. Entities wishing to advertise can create a facebook page (similar to how users make a profile page)and although you cannot have them/it/etc. as friends, you can be a fan. The advertising entity is then able to better understand its user base. I still need more clarification on this....
2. Advertisements on your facebook profile will be more targeted. For example, rather than seeing an advertisement for a camera, you will instead see an ad stating that your friend 'Mary; for example, just bought this camera, etc. Interesting. Pretty much looks like a referral system to me, smart.
These are the products, concepts that stuck out the most to me . . . although all the companies have interesting concepts (although sleep.fm is just terrible in my opinion).
1. Jeff Han, Perceptive Pixel (awesome, period.)
2. Alex Daley, Microsoft Live Labs' Photosynth (awesome, period.)
3. Sam Lessin, Drop.io ( impermanent online data dump viewable to those allowed)
4. Ryan Spahn, Sleep.FM (wake up to various messages from friends, not so hot!)
5. Ami Vora, The Facebook (discussing new advertising program)
6. David Karp, Tumblr (blogging made easy)
7. Sir Jacob Lodwick, Vimeo (online video platform)
I had a chance to speak to a handful of the presenters, but unfortunately I could not stay as long as I would have hoped.
Perceptive Pixel
Jeff Han described nyu based technology that can best be described by watching the video below. Pretty cool, and although you can buy the technology now, it's going to run you at least 6 figures (anything that is considered military grade, is apparently expensive...hmm)
Microsoft Live Labs' Photosynth is doing something very similar. Also, best explained by the video below.
Facebook discussed their new advertising platform. From what I gathered, there are two main features of this ad based system:
1. Entities wishing to advertise can create a facebook page (similar to how users make a profile page)and although you cannot have them/it/etc. as friends, you can be a fan. The advertising entity is then able to better understand its user base. I still need more clarification on this....
2. Advertisements on your facebook profile will be more targeted. For example, rather than seeing an advertisement for a camera, you will instead see an ad stating that your friend 'Mary; for example, just bought this camera, etc. Interesting. Pretty much looks like a referral system to me, smart.
These are the products, concepts that stuck out the most to me . . . although all the companies have interesting concepts (although sleep.fm is just terrible in my opinion).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
