Archive: Food for Thought

Food for Thought: Personalized Medicine – Testing Prospective Parents?

Personalized medicine is regarded as the next big thing in healthcare, but so far business models to make money in this field are limited. One example is Hamburg-based Indivumed which specializes on the support of pharma companies and research institutions with cancer biospecimens and related data and services generated under highly standardized conditions. Another one, argues Steve Dickman of CBTadvisors in his recent Boston Biotech Watch blog, might be genetic counseling for prospective parents.
Steve judges potential success of businesses in the personalized medicine space according to four criteria, asking whether the concept is 1) actionable, 2) cost-effective, 3) based on validated science, and 4) clinically meaningful.
Going through this list he comes to the conclusion that the business model of California-based Counsyl looks promising. For $698 per couple the company is offering prospective parents a one-price panel of SNP-based tests for more than 100 genetic diseases so that a couple can learn whether its offspring is at risk for these conditions.
So while it is easy to tick the boxes on 2, 3, and 4, the questions is actionability: what are the options for treatment, preventive action, or behavior?
This is the field we predict will be hotly debated, at least in Europe. Once a risk is detected, the options on the table  are: refrain from conceiving a child and opt for adoption, or choose abortion in case the child is affected by the condition the risk was predicted for, or go for in vitro fertilization followed by preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
While many may not like the idea because it evokes memories of eugenics, reality shows that many people do want to know what their genes and their options are. Anyone dare to place a ban on it?

Food for Thought: Are We Really the Prey? Nanotechnology as Science and Science Fiction

In his 2002 novel Prey, Michael Crichton develops a scary scenario about the impact of “molecular manufacturing”, i.e. the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information & communication technologies. The concept focuses on the risks of self-replicating, so-called  “nanoscale assemblers” and was originally published by scientists K. Eric Drexler (former co-founder of the Foresight Institute) and Richard Feynman. Criticized and challenged by fellow scientists such as Nobel Prize winner Richard Smalley, the concept of molecular manufacturing nevertheless reflects society´s fear of novel, unknown technologies – specifically, the fear of losing control over some seemingly overwhelming artificial power.

In their paper “Are We Really the Prey? Nanotechnology as Science and Science Fiction“, Australian scientists Diana M. Bowman, Graeme A. Hodge, and Peter Binks have analyzed the impact, chances and risks of the molecular manufacturing concept. Calling not only for improving the regulatory framework on novel technologies such as nanotechnology, their key conclusion is that “unwillingness to engage in public dialogue is a consumer and citizen backlash waiting to happen, as was experienced with biotechnology. Current real developments in nanotechnology offer exciting opportunities to advance the human condition; however, implausible ideas framed by some scientists only serve to influence the creative talents of science fiction writers, like Crichton, who then prey on the public’s lack of knowledge of the current boundaries of nanotechnology for entertainment’s sake.”

Consequently, the advancement of innovative products does not only call for more adequate regulatory conditions, but also – and most importantly – for the willingness and proactivity of both the scientific community and innovation-driven companies to increasingly address and interact with the general public. As it has turned out, the acceptance of innovative technologies by the public may be the crucial key to success or failure.

Source:  “Are We Really the Prey? Nanotechnology as Science and Science Fiction”, by Diana M. Bowman, Graeme A. Hodge and Peter Binks, Bulletin of Science Technology Society 2007; 27; 435. An online version of the paper is available here

Food for Thought: Improving Media Coverage on Healthcare

Whether it’s about vaccines, new drugs or side effects of existing medications –  media coverage of medical topics very often is poor and biased. Written from an industry or pharma critics perspective, it exaggerates either risks or benefits. In addition, writers often do not seem to be familiar with the various tedious tasks, steps and regulatory requirements of drug development.

Enter Media Doctor, an initiative by Australian academics and clinicians from the Newcastle Institute of Public Health, who are interested in promoting better and more accurate media coverage in the area of medical treatments. They founded Media Doctor Australia, a website reviewing and rating news items on medical treatments using a standardized rating scale. The website also presents examples of reports regarded as good or bad.

Media Doctor applies ten different rating criteria in six categories, respectively: Pharmaceutical, Adverse Effects, Diagnostic Tests, Surgical Procedure, Complementary and Alternative Medicines, and Other. As an example, an article is regarded unsatisfactory if it does not mention sources and possible conflict of interest or does not attempt at independent corroboration. A satisfactory story for example needs to discuss the strength of evidence in detail.

Meanwhile, the idea has spread to Canada, Hong Kong, and the U.S. (under the name of Healthnewsreview). The U.S. website in particular is very outspoken, and does not hesitate to label poor stories as “shovelware straight from a news release” or an “unbalanced story” providing only “two rosy anecdotes” as evidence.

Useful statistics provide the reader with insights on which media and journalists provide the most reliable stories. That’s exactly the lever for improvement, and – for journalists – also a possibility to demonstrate competence and quality.

akampion now has learned that a German version of Healthnewsreview is in preparation at the University of Dortmund’s Chair of Science Journalism. We will keep you updated on how and when the site will be up and running!

Food for Thought: Speedway – A New Electromobility Concept

To reduce the dependance of today’s mobility needs on fossil fuels, it is not enough to just change the energy source. As an example, the cruising range of today’s e-cars is sufficient for commuting, but still too small for traveling longer distances.

Enter Christian Foerg http://redir.ec/foerg , a young designer from Munich who just finished his diploma thesis at FH Munich with his “Speedway” electromobility concept. It is based on an electric vehicle which is supported by an external linear motor embedded beneath the pavement of conventional highways.
While the electric vehicle runs on battery power in towns and in the countryside, on the autobahn it is driven by a drifting magnetic field. The concept already is used in passenger carriers on airports (JFK’s Airtrain), in subways (Tokyo’s Toei Oedo line), and in Shanghai’s Transrapid train.

Foerg’s feasibility study calculates costs of 8.5 million Euros per highway kilometer to convert existing highways. This is in line with the costs of building or rebuilding conventional highways, ranging from 6 to 12 million Euros per kilometer. In Foerg’s concept, the highway still can be used by conventional cars and the system can be implemented step by step.

1 … 22 23 24