I have a PhD in molecular biology, but not a cancer person, but pro NIH bias
I think this blog post is a load of horse puckey.
if all you have is a hammer (writing blog posts that are critical of this or that) then everything looks like a nail (something bad that you can fulminate against)
The one very very very painful lesson we have learn…
I have a PhD in molecular biology, but not a cancer person, but pro NIH bias
I think this blog post is a load of horse puckey.
if all you have is a hammer (writing blog posts that are critical of this or that) then everything looks like a nail (something bad that you can fulminate against)
The one very very very painful lesson we have learned, or should have learned in the last 50 years is that cancer is one effing fiendishly clever foe, and progress is slow, but
even a little bit of progress = people saying good morning to their loved ones, rather then their loved ones saying Kaddish
somewhere Erwin Chargaff remarks about DNA sequencing (in the Sanger dideoxy era) that it was bogus cause no one did wet chemistry to get an analytical measure that the pyrimidine / purine ratio of the sample was close to one !! <sarcasm/>
Your point regarding cancer is valid, but a more apt response to the article would be: "Cancer by its nature may not be amenable to a Moonshot initiative, because it's not just one thing." The article supports the value of incremental progress, so your denunciation is unjust.
But scientific honesty demands that if we call an initiative a "Moonshot," it is deserving of the name and not merely a reinforcement of the status quo with more research dollars.
I have a PhD in molecular biology, but not a cancer person, but pro NIH bias
I think this blog post is a load of horse puckey.
if all you have is a hammer (writing blog posts that are critical of this or that) then everything looks like a nail (something bad that you can fulminate against)
The one very very very painful lesson we have learned, or should have learned in the last 50 years is that cancer is one effing fiendishly clever foe, and progress is slow, but
even a little bit of progress = people saying good morning to their loved ones, rather then their loved ones saying Kaddish
https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/moonshot-cancer-initiative/progress
Sad but not surprising how far standards for PhD's in molecular biology have slipped these days.
yeah, right
somewhere Erwin Chargaff remarks about DNA sequencing (in the Sanger dideoxy era) that it was bogus cause no one did wet chemistry to get an analytical measure that the pyrimidine / purine ratio of the sample was close to one !! <sarcasm/>
C’mon, do better.
Woke boiler plate. Really?
Your point regarding cancer is valid, but a more apt response to the article would be: "Cancer by its nature may not be amenable to a Moonshot initiative, because it's not just one thing." The article supports the value of incremental progress, so your denunciation is unjust.
But scientific honesty demands that if we call an initiative a "Moonshot," it is deserving of the name and not merely a reinforcement of the status quo with more research dollars.