While cheaper sequencing hasn't really produced much in the way of new treatments (yet), I disagree that it hasn't been productive or tha...
While cheaper sequencing hasn't really produced much in the way of new treatments (yet), I disagree that it hasn't been productive or that sequence data is of low accuracy. For example, it is striking to see how relatively little was known about Mendelian disease genes before 1990 (see https://www.genome.gov/Multimedia/Slides/GSPFuture2014/04_Mc... , slide 6, as an example for retinal diseases). I think one of the most frustrating things now is that the price of sequencing isn't continuing to decrease. You bring up another good point about "Eroom's Law" in which pharma productivity is actually decreasing, and that article was actually one of the things that got us interested in trying to do something new. What we are trying to do is to help reverse that trend by doing something different than what large pharma companies are already working on - if we keep doing the same thing despite ever-decreasing productivity, then I don't see how we can expect the trend to change.
Posted by chenja on Jul 21, 2015, 11:19 PM
Tags
Related issues
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.5,000 issues0 comments
pricing (Other)
Well, actually not.
NewI have a 2022 mini that I use constantly.
NewTwo observation: 1.
NewCautiously optimistic for them.
NewI have two televisions - living room TV with an AppleTV and bedroom TV with some Roku device.
NewI hate that they claim the pricing like that.
NewEverything is too expensive for European bureaucrats.
Yeah, the plan is far too expensive for what it provides.
While cheaper sequencing hasn't really produced much in the way of new treatments (yet), I disagree that it hasn't been productive or tha...
While cheaper sequencing hasn't really produced much in the way of new treatments (yet), I disagree that it hasn't been productive or that sequence data is of low accuracy. For example, it is striking to see how relatively little was known about Mendelian disease genes before 1990 (see https://www.genome.gov/Multimedia/Slides/GSPFuture2014/04_Mc... , slide 6, as an example for retinal diseases). I think one of the most frustrating things now is that the price of sequencing isn't continuing to decrease. You bring up another good point about "Eroom's Law" in which pharma productivity is actually decreasing, and that article was actually one of the things that got us interested in trying to do something new. What we are trying to do is to help reverse that trend by doing something different than what large pharma companies are already working on - if we keep doing the same thing despite ever-decreasing productivity, then I don't see how we can expect the trend to change.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.