Self-Motivation
David Goggins
Former Navy Seal
Career Development
Bryan Cranston
Actor
Critical Thinking
Liv Boeree
International Poker Champion
Emotional Intelligence
Amaryllis Fox
Former CIA Clandestine Operative
Management
Chris Hadfield
Retired Canadian Astronaut & Author
Learn
from the world's big
thinkers
Start Learningfrom the world's big
thinkers
The Exact Number of Computers Needed to Simulate the Human Brain is Almost Inconceivable
Yes, conceivably. And if/when we achieve the levels of technology necessary for simulation, the universe will become our playground.
David Eagleman
David Eagleman is a neuroscientist and a New York Times bestselling author. He directs the Laboratory for Perception and Action at the Baylor College of Medicine, where he also directs the Initiative on Neuroscience and Law. He is best known for his work on time perception, brain plasticity, synesthesia, and neurolaw.
He is the writer and presenter of the PBS epic series, The Brain with David Eagleman, and the author of the companion book, The Brain: The Story of You.
Beyond his 100+ academic publications, he has published many popular books. His bestselling book Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain, explores the neuroscience "under the hood" of the conscious mind: all the aspects of neural function to which we have no awareness or access. His work of fiction, SUM, is an international bestseller published in 28 languages and turned into two operas. Why the Net Matters examines what the advent of the internet means on the timescale of civilizations. The award-winning Wednesday is Indigo Blue explores the neurological condition of synesthesia, in which the senses are blended.
Eagleman is a TED speaker, a Guggenheim Fellow, a winner of the McGovern Award for Excellence in Biomedical Communication, a Next Generation Texas Fellow, Vice-Chair on the World Economic Forum's Global Agenda Council on Neuroscience & Behaviour, a research fellow in the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, Chief Scientific Advisor for the Mind Science Foundation, and a board member of The Long Now Foundation. He has served as an academic editor for several scientific journals. He was named Science Educator of the Year by the Society for Neuroscience, and was featured as one of the Brightest Idea Guys by Italy's Style magazine. He is founder of the company BrainCheck and the cofounder of the company NeoSensory. He was the scientific advisor for the television drama Perception, and has been profiled on the Colbert Report, NOVA Science Now, the New Yorker, CNN's Next List, and many other venues. He appears regularly on radio and television to discuss literature and science.
David Eagleman: The big picture in modern neuroscience is that you are the sum total of all the pieces and parts of your brain. It’s a vastly complicated network of neurons, almost 100 billion neurons, each of which has 10,000 connections to its neighbors. So we’re talking a thousand trillion neurons. It’s a system of such complexity that it bankrupts our language. But, fundamentally it’s only three pounds and we’ve got it cornered and it’s right there and it’s a physical system.
The computational hypothesis of brain function suggests that the physical wetware isn’t the stuff that matters. It’s what are the algorithms that are running on top of the wetware. In other words: What is the brain actually doing? What’s it implementing software-wise that matters? Hypothetically we should be able to take the physical stuff of the brain and reproduce what it’s doing. In other words, reproduce its software on other substrates. So we could take your brain and reproduce it out of beer cans and tennis balls and it would still run just fine. And if we said hey, "How are you feeling in there?" This beer can/tennis ball machine would say "Oh, I’m feeling fine. It’s a little cold, whatever."
It’s also hypothetically a possibility that we could copy your brain and reproduce it in silica, which means on a computer at zeroes and ones, actually run the simulation of your brain. The challenges of reproducing a brain can’t be underestimated. It would take something like a zettabyte of computational capacity to run a simulation of a human brain. And that is the entire computational capacity of our planet right now.
There’s a lot of debate about whether we’ll get to a simulation of the human brain in 50 years or 500 years, but those would probably be the bounds. It’s going to happen somewhere in there. It opens up the whole universe for us because, you know, these meat puppets that we come to the table with aren’t any good for interstellar travel. But if we could, you know, put you on a flash drive or whatever the equivalent of that is a century from now and launch you into outer space and your consciousness could be there, that could get us to other solar systems and other galaxies. We will really be entering an era of post-humanism or trans-humanism at that point.
Now because it seems like a possibility that we could download and simulate — not in our lifetimes, but soon — that has opened up a question from many people, which is how would we know if we’re already living in a simulation? Maybe we are the products of a civilization that came a billion years before us and we’re already living in The Matrix. And this is a position that philosophers are taking seriously.
In fact, Rene Descartes, the French philosopher, had a version of this when he asked how would I know if I’m just a brain in a vat and I’m being stimulated by scientists to make me think that I’m hearing, and seeing, and feeling and so on. And his conclusion, like others that have followed him, is that you actually can’t know. Really it would be almost impossible to know because all of this feels real to you. And so Descartes’ solution to this was to say you know, I might not ever be able to really know, but there’s somebody who’s asking the question and therefore I exist. There’s some "I" at the center of all this that’s thinking about this. And so that was a solution for him but it doesn’t solve the bigger question of how would we know if we’re already in the simulation and we may well be.
David Eagleman is the host of The Brain on PBS, as well as the author of the book of the same name. In this video, he tackles several fascinating subjects concerning your brain. If the brain is merely the hardware, could we emulate its software somewhere else? Could we simulate your version of consciousness on a man-made computer? Yes, says Eagleman, although it's not going to happen anytime soon. But when it does, and we're able to move beyond our flesh, deep space travel goes from being impossible to possible.
A new hydrogel might be strong enough for knee replacements
Duke University researchers might have solved a half-century old problem.
07 July, 2020
Photo by Alexander Hassenstein/Getty Images
Technology & Innovation
- Duke University researchers created a hydrogel that appears to be as strong and flexible as human cartilage.
- The blend of three polymers provides enough flexibility and durability to mimic the knee.
- The next step is to test this hydrogel in sheep; human use can take at least three years.
<p>While the human body is designed for decades of use, we are prone to breaking down at inopportune times. Our necks didn't evolve to hold certain head positions (like hunched over a laptop). Foot pain is commonplace. And every year, there are more than <a href="https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/treatment/total-knee-replacement/" target="_blank">790,000 knee replacements</a> in America.</p><p>The knee is a complex joint. While its major function is connecting the femur to the tibia, the fibula and patella complete the bone structure. Enter ligaments: the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) prevents the femur from sliding backward; the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) prevents forward sliding; medial and lateral ligaments stop side to side action. The medial and lateral menisci act as shock absorbers, while a number of bursae keep the joint working smoothly. </p><p>Until, of course, everything is not running smoothly. Knee replacements are common; meniscus surgeries even more so: an <a href="https://now.aapmr.org/meniscus-injuries-of-the-knee/#:~:text=Epidemiology%20including%20risk%20factors%20and%20primary%20prevention&text=There%20is%20an%20increased%20incidence,from%2022%25%20to%2086%25.&text=In%20the%20US,%20of%20the,surgical%20repair%20of%20the%20meniscus." target="_blank">estimated 850,000</a> per year. Throw in <a href="https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/89442-overview#:~:text=United%20States,-An%20estimated%20200,000&text=Approximately%20100,000%20ACL%20reconstructions%20are,football,%20skiing,%20and%20soccer." target="_blank">100,000 ACL reconstructions</a> for good measure. Every year, over 1.7 million Americans are get their knees worked on. </p><p>Fortunately, our understanding of the knee has gotten better. Many of these surgeries are relatively minor. My meniscal tear was so bad that it folded under itself and required my surgeon to add an extra hole while repairing it. Yet I still walked out of the hospital without crutches, didn't need painkillers, and was in the gym three days later (with modifications). </p><p>The caveat: the surgeon had to remove almost the entire meniscus, taking out one of my shock absorbers. Bone-on-bone action increases the likelihood of osteoarthritis (which had already begun in my thirties). He said it's likely I'll need a knee replacement down the road. </p><p>The good news: a new artificial cartilage gel appears to be strong enough to work in knees.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ0MDkyOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMzYzODEzNn0.PPUlBAVUzex9k4Ui3CLmeRbIa1uovBqzo2gwfFFWZ00/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C72%2C0%2C46&height=700" id="21439" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="01c11d5895bbc2b43de8575b888d741d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Duke researchers have developed the first gel-based synthetic cartilage with the strength of the real thing. A quarter-sized disc of the material can withstand the weight of a 100-pound kettlebell without tearing or losing its shape.
Photo: Feichen Yang.
<p>That's the word from a team in the Department of Chemistry and Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Duke University. Their <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adfm.202003451" target="_blank">new paper</a>, published in the journal,<em> Advanced Functional Materials</em>, details this exciting evolution of this frustrating joint.<br></p><p>Researchers have sought materials strong and versatile enough to repair a knee since at least the seventies. This new hydrogel, comprised of three polymers, might be it. When two of the polymers are stretched, a third keeps the entire structure intact. When pulled 100,000 times, the cartilage held up as well as materials used in bone implants. The team also rubbed the hydrogel against natural cartilage a million times and found it to be as wear-resistant as the real thing. </p><p>The hydrogel has the appearance of Jell-O and is comprised of 60 percent water. Co-author, Feichen Yang, <a href="https://today.duke.edu/2020/06/lab-first-cartilage-mimicking-gel-strong-enough-knees" target="_blank">says</a> this network of polymers is particularly durable: "Only this combination of all three components is both flexible and stiff and therefore strong." </p><p> As with any new material, a lot of testing must be conducted. They don't foresee this hydrogel being implanted into human bodies for at least three years. The next step is to test it out in sheep. </p><p>Still, this is an exciting step forward in the rehabilitation of one of our trickiest joints. Given the potential reward, the wait is worth it. </p><p><span></span>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Predicting PTSD symptoms becomes possible with a new test
An algorithm may allow doctors to assess PTSD candidates for early intervention after traumatic ER visits.
07 July, 2020
Image source: camillo jimenez/Unsplash
Technology & Innovation
- 10-15% of people visiting emergency rooms eventually develop symptoms of long-lasting PTSD.
- Early treatment is available but there's been no way to tell who needs it.
- Using clinical data already being collected, machine learning can identify who's at risk.
The psychological scars a traumatic experience can leave behind may have a more profound effect on a person than the original traumatic experience. Long after an acute emergency is resolved, victims of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) continue to suffer its consequences.
In the U.S. some 30 million patients are annually treated in emergency departments (EDs) for a range of traumatic injuries. Add to that urgent admissions to the ED with the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Health experts predict that some 10 percent to 15 percent of these people will develop long-lasting PTSD within a year of the initial incident. While there are interventions that can help individuals avoid PTSD, there's been no reliable way to identify those most likely to need it.
That may now have changed. A multi-disciplinary team of researchers has developed a method for predicting who is most likely to develop PTSD after a traumatic emergency-room experience. Their study is published in the journal Nature Medicine.
70 data points and machine learning
Image source: Creators Collective/Unsplash
Study lead author Katharina Schultebraucks of Columbia University's Department Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons says:
"For many trauma patients, the ED visit is often their sole contact with the health care system. The time immediately after a traumatic injury is a critical window for identifying people at risk for PTSD and arranging appropriate follow-up treatment. The earlier we can treat those at risk, the better the likely outcomes."
The new PTSD test uses machine learning and 70 clinical data points plus a clinical stress-level assessment to develop a PTSD score for an individual that identifies their risk of acquiring the condition.
Among the 70 data points are stress hormone levels, inflammatory signals, high blood pressure, and an anxiety-level assessment. Says Schultebraucks, "We selected measures that are routinely collected in the ED and logged in the electronic medical record, plus answers to a few short questions about the psychological stress response. The idea was to create a tool that would be universally available and would add little burden to ED personnel."
Researchers used data from adult trauma survivors in Atlanta, Georgia (377 individuals) and New York City (221 individuals) to test their system.
Of this cohort, 90 percent of those predicted to be at high risk developed long-lasting PTSD symptoms within a year of the initial traumatic event — just 5 percent of people who never developed PTSD symptoms had been erroneously identified as being at risk.
On the other side of the coin, 29 percent of individuals were 'false negatives," tagged by the algorithm as not being at risk of PTSD, but then developing symptoms.
Going forward
Image source: Külli Kittus/Unsplash
Schultebraucks looks forward to more testing as the researchers continue to refine their algorithm and to instill confidence in the approach among ED clinicians: "Because previous models for predicting PTSD risk have not been validated in independent samples like our model, they haven't been adopted in clinical practice." She expects that, "Testing and validation of our model in larger samples will be necessary for the algorithm to be ready-to-use in the general population."
"Currently only 7% of level-1 trauma centers routinely screen for PTSD," notes Schultebraucks. "We hope that the algorithm will provide ED clinicians with a rapid, automatic readout that they could use for discharge planning and the prevention of PTSD." She envisions the algorithm being implemented in the future as a feature of electronic medical records.
The researchers also plan to test their algorithm at predicting PTSD in people whose traumatic experiences come in the form of health events such as heart attacks and strokes, as opposed to visits to the emergency department.
Hints of the 4th dimension have been detected by physicists
What would it be like to experience the 4th dimension?
14 January, 2018
Two different experiments show hints of a 4th spatial dimension. Credit: Zilberberg Group / ETH Zürich
Technology & Innovation
Physicists have understood at least theoretically, that there may be higher dimensions, besides our normal three. The first clue came in 1905 when Einstein developed his theory of special relativity. Of course, by dimensions we’re talking about length, width, and height. Generally speaking, when we talk about a fourth dimension, it’s considered space-time. But here, physicists mean a spatial dimension beyond the normal three, not a parallel universe, as such dimensions are mistaken for in popular sci-fi shows.
<p></p><p>Even if there are other dimensions somewhere out there in our universe or in others, should we travel to a place which includes them, scientists aren’t so sure we could even experience them. Our brains may be incapable. Mathematically, we can describe the 4<sup>th</sup> dimension but <a href="https://gizmodo.com/two-experiments-show-fourth-spatial-dimension-effect-1821739488" target="_blank" title="Gizmodo ">we may never experience it in the physical realm</a>.</p> <p></p><p>Even so, that hasn’t stopped us from looking for evidence of higher dimensions. One model which helps us conceive of it easier and understand it better is a <a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tesseract.html" target="_blank" title="Math World">tesseract </a>or hypercube. This is a cube within a cube. Though a helpful metaphor, it doesn’t actually exist in the real world. So how might scientists actually detect the 4<sup>th</sup> dimension? Two separate research teams, one in the US and one in Europe have completed dual experiments, to do just that.</p> <p></p><p>Both of these were 2D experiments which hinted at a 4D world, utilizing a phenomenon known as the quantum Hall effect. The Hall Effect is when you have an electrically conducive material, say a sheet of metal or a wire, which you pass current through. The electrons move in one direction. Place a magnetic field perpendicular to the material and instead of electrons get diverted to the left or right, by what’s called the Lorentz force.</p> <p></p><p>Find a good explanation of the Hall effect and quantum Hall effect here:</p> <p></p><p class="flex-video"><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76027b483fd26f1c1a35b3d467ca7471"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SpZqmZPtj9I?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span></p> <p></p><p>The result of the Hall effect is that <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mind-boggling-experiments-reveal-glimpses-4th-dimension-1654255" target="_blank" title="The International Business Times">electrons get stuck within a 2D system</a>. They can then only move in two directions. The quantum Hall effect occurs at the quantum level, either when the material is at very low temperatures, or is subject to a very strong magnetic field. Here, an additional thing happens. The voltage doesn’t increase normally but instead,<a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/4d-world-light-moving-fourth-dimension-observed-during-quantum-hall-experiment-2638484" target="_blank" title="The International Business Times"> jumps up in steps.</a> By <a href="http://www.sciencealert.com/experiments-show-dramatic-effects-of-fourth-spatial-dimension" target="_blank" title="Science Alert">restricting electrons with the quantum Hall effect</a>, you can also measure them.</p> <p></p><p>Follow the math and you’ll realize that the quantum Hall effect is also detectable within a 4D system. Professor Mikael Rechtsman of Penn State University was part of the American team. He told <a href="https://gizmodo.com/two-experiments-show-fourth-spatial-dimension-effect-1821739488" target="_blank" title="Gizmodo"><em>Gizmodo</em></a>, "Physically, we don't have a 4D spatial system, but we can access 4D quantum Hall physics using this lower-dimensional system because the higher-dimensional system is coded in the complexity of the structure."</p> <p></p><p>We ourselves as 3D objects cast a 2D shadow. A 4D object should then cast a 3D shadow. We can learn something about a 3D object by studying its shadow. So it stands to reason that we could also gain knowledge about a 4D object from its 3D shadow. Both teams in these experiments did something of that kind. They used lasers to catch a glimpse of the 4<sup>th</sup> dimension. The results of each experiment were published in two <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25011" target="_blank" title="Nature">reports</a>, both in the journal <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25000" target="_blank" title="Nature"><em>Nature</em></a>.</p> <p></p><p>In the European experiment, scientists took the element rubidium and cooled it down to absolute zero. Then, they trapped atoms there within a lattice of lasers, creating what researchers describe as, "an egg-carton-like crystal of light." Next, they introduced more lasers to excite the atoms, creating what’s known as a quantum “charge pump.” Though atoms themselves don’t have a charge, here they simulated the transport of electrical charges. Subtle variations in the atoms’ movements coincided with how the quantum Hall effect would play out in the 4<sup>th</sup> dimension. </p> <p></p><p>To hear an explanation of the 4th dimension using a video game, click here:</p> <p></p><p class="flex-video"><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="91465a669e3313fee677bf690af72298"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XfiFBsKi7go?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span></p> <p></p><p>In the US experiment, glass was used to control the flow of laser light into the system. This was basically a rectangular glass prism with a series of channels within it, which looked like a number of fiber optic cables stuck inside, running the length of the box and terminating at both ends. Researchers were able to manipulate the light using these channels as wave guides, in order to make it act like an electric field. When light jumped from opposite edges into the corners, researchers knew they had observed the quantum Hall effect, as it would occur in a 4D system.</p> <p></p><p>Scientists at ETH Zürich, a university in Switzerland, conducted the European experiment. Researcher Oded Zilberberg was among them. He said that before these experiments, observing actions occurring in the 4<sup>th</sup> dimension seemed more like science fiction.</p> <p></p><p>“Right now, those experiments are still far from any useful application,” he said. Yet, physics in the 4<sup>th</sup> dimension could be influencing our 3D world. As for applications Rechtsman said, “Maybe we can come up with new physics in the higher dimension and then design devices that take advantage the higher-dimensional physics in lower dimensions.”</p> <p></p><p>In these experiments, the photons and electrons didn’t interact. In the next, scientists believe it might be interesting to see what happens when they do. Rechtsman claims we could gain a better understanding of the phases of matter by investigating the 4<sup>th</sup> dimension. Say we get a healthy grasp of it, is that the end? Certainly not. Theoretical physicists believe <a href="http://bigthink.com/videos/the-multiverse-has-11-dimensions-2" target="_blank" title="Big Think ">there may as many as 11 dimensions.</a></p> <p></p><p>To learn about the 4<sup>th</sup> dimension from Carl Sagan himself, click here:</p> <p></p><p class="flex-video"><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d1a7607e739faaa8dfcf7a724c790e17"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N0WjV6MmCyM?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span></p>
Keep reading
Show less
How often do vaccine trials hit paydirt?
Vaccines find more success in development than any other kind of drug, but have been relatively neglected in recent decades.
07 July, 2020
Pedro Vilela/Getty Images
Surprising Science
Vaccines are more likely to get through clinical trials than any other type of drug — but have been given relatively little pharmaceutical industry support during the last two decades, according to a new study by MIT scholars.
<p>Over a two-decade span from January 2000 to January 2020, private-sector vaccine-development efforts succeeded in bringing a drug to market 39.6 percent of the time, the researchers found. By contrast, programs to develop anti-infective therapeutics — medicines that lessen the severity of illness, including antibiotics — succeeded 16.3 percent of the time.</p><p>"The probability of success for vaccines is reliably higher than for any other drug development area," says MIT economist Andrew Lo, co-author of a new paper detailing the study.</p><p>At a glance, that might seem to augur well for drug-development prospects during the Covid-19 pandemic, since over 100 projects globally are aimed at finding a vaccine for the virus. But scientists may be racing to make up for lost time, in a sense — because as the study also shows, vaccine development for some of the world's most dangerous diseases has lagged in recent decades.</p>
<p>For instance: Out of nearly 10,000 drug-development projects in the study, just a relative handful have addressed the high-profile, highly problematic contagions of the last 20 years.</p><p>"If you look at the most significant diseases outside of Covid-19, like MERS, SARS, Ebola, and Zika, among those diseases, there's been a total of only 45 nonvaccine programs initiated over the last two decades for them," Lo notes. "And there's been only one vaccine approved, for Ebola, in December 2019. That's worrisome, because we know for a fact that these diseases are real threats, and yet there's been relatively little attention paid to them."</p><p>The paper, "Estimating Probabilities of Success of Vaccine and Other Anti-Infective Therapeutic Development Programs," was released on May 18 as part of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper series and has been accepted for publication in the <em>Harvard Data Science Review</em>. The authors are Lo, who is the Charles E. and Susan T. Harris Professor in the MIT Sloan School of Management and director of MIT's Laboratory of Financial Engineering; Kien Wei Siah, a PhD candidate in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science; and Chi Heem Wong, a PhD candidate in the Computer Science and Artifical Intelligence Laboratory and the Laboratory for Financial Engineering.</p>
<h3>Limited big pharma investment</h3><p>To conduct the study, the scholars examined information collected by Citeline, a firm that maintains proprietary pharmaceutical-industry databases about drug development and clinical trials. The study reviewed 2,544 vaccine programs and 6,829 nonvaccine development programs. After an initial preclinical research and development phase, a drug candidate usually undergoes three formal trial phases in human subjects, the first generally aimed at examining its safety, and the next two more focused on efficacy.</p><p>Among other findings, the scholars identified lower success rates for drug-development programs outside of private industry — such as those led by investigators in academic hospitals. These efforts succeeded 6.8 percent of the time for vaccines and 8.2 percent of the time for therapeutics, something Lo chalks up to the smaller scale of many of the projects.</p><p>"Academic medical centers don't have the resources big pharma does," says Lo.</p><p>Lo also points out that the relatively low success rates for nonvaccine therapeutics, including antibiotics, "jumped out" at him. "I don't think people realize just how important antibiotics are, and how few of them we currently have in our medical arsenal," Lo adds. "We're just not investing enough resources into this critical field."</p><p>The researchers also found widely varying outcomes by types of illnesses. Out of 27 disease categories for which vaccine development efforts occurred, only 12 have seen drugs receive government approval. The disease type with the highest success rate, among those with more than one drug candidate, was rotavirus; in this category 78.7 percent of programs have been successful.</p><p>By contrast — and in addition to MERS, SARS, and Zika — HIV is a case with a notable lack of a successful vaccine, after hundreds of projects attempting to develop one.</p><p>Lo notes that only four of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies are heavily invested in vaccine development, down considerably from two decades ago — despite the fact that vaccines have easily the best odds of becoming successful drugs.</p><p>"This tells me that the economics of vaccines must be really challenging, if fewer and fewer big pharma companies are willing to commit resources to this business," Lo says. "If there's a silver lining to this terrible pandemic, it's that things are going to change in the aftermath of Covid-19."</p>
<h3>Why an "insurance" drug may be less profitable</h3><p>Indeed, Lo suggests, the specific economic challenge is that vaccines are the equivalent of "insurance," among medicines: We apply them to limit the cost of disasters, but do not always think to invest in them in advance. Many governments may not have perceived a need to develop and stockpile vaccines, thereby reducing the demand for vaccine research and making it less rewarding for private industry.</p><p>"Vaccines used to be [more] profitable," Lo says. "But over the course of the last 15-20 years, I think governments have started cutting budgets and ignoring issues that aren't clear and present dangers, perhaps expecting private insurers to pick up the slack. Unless there's an immediate threat to public health, it's really hard to get people to focus on it. It's like insurance … You don't think you're going to need it, until you do. And then it's usually too late."</p><p>That fiscal austerity may also have been combined with historical complacency, as past successes against smallpox, polio, and other diseases created a perception that terrible pandemics were a thing of the past.</p>
<p>In any case, Lo says, the data paints a clear picture: Vaccine research is both promising and underfunded.</p><p>"The reason we wrote this paper is to bring more awareness to this situation," Lo says. "Now that we've experienced the deadly consequences of a pandemic, the hope is that governments around the world — and it really has to be governments — will pay more attention."</p><p>Lo adds: "As the saying goes, 'crisis is a terrible thing to waste,' so we need to take advantage of this opportunity to come up with a more enduring solution, not just for this pandemic, but for all future pandemics, because inevitably another pandemic will emerge, whether its SARS, MERS, or some other pathogen we've never encountered. Thanks to a number of recent biomedical breakthroughs, we now have many more ways of creating anti-infectives than ever before — we just need the political will to do so."</p><p>The study drew upon research support from the MIT Laboratory for Financial Engineering and funding from The Rockefeller Foundation. Lo also helped found a consulting firm that analyzes drug development data.</p><p>Reprinted with permission of <a href="http://news.mit.edu/" target="_blank">MIT News</a>. Read the <a href="http://news.mit.edu/2020/how-often-vaccine-trials-succeed-0527" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
Featured Video
