Comments on
Andy Grove’s Mad Again, This Time at Biomedicine

One Comment to
“Andy Grove’s Mad Again, This Time at Biomedicine”

Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines. The comments below begin with the oldest comments first. Click on the last comments page to jump to the most recent comments.

1. alexandra_k 8:24 pm on November 6th, 2007

   > We need to give wild ducks the opportunity to emerge and quack their way to success.

   Yes, just what we need – more quacks

   I don’t understand where people get this notion that academia doesn’t let people have new ideas or encourage them to follow up on new ideas.

   What are people trying to do? Figure out what the hell is causing serious diseases such that one can treat them. That is something that there are many many many many many researchers working on. All trying to be the first to come up with the groundbreaking results.

   One gets megafunding for writing a grant that raves on and on about the seriousness of the disease and the potential benefits to suferers of that disease in the grant proposal.

   Just try and get funding to study ‘the concept of disease’. One might very well think that people are encouraged into ‘standardized topics’ for funding. Know what those megafunded topics are, however? Ones with real world, fairly short term (if they work) applications. Like… Figuring out causes for and treatments for people with diseases.

   I can’t believe that people are thinking that what is needed is ‘more ideas’. Pharmaceutical companies (and researchers) don’t even understand how many of the current (effective) medications work. Breakthroughs on medication are likely to come from combinatorial chemistry (random trial and error) than any ‘good idea’.

   Look to technological advances in surgery. In imaging equipment (fMRI etc). Not in medications…

   Reply

Join the Conversation!

Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines.

Post a Comment: