In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/11116
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Pellionisz 07/14/2010 03:41 PM Report
The Panel is remarkable in not saying that without the theory of recursive genome function - where genomics and epigenomics are mathematically treated as the hologenome - we'll continue to be frustrated at looking at our medicine cabinet half-empty (of half full?) of genomic medicines. Every panelist is correct in what they do say, either from the skeptical viewpoint (Wade) implying that the meager results show that we overspent, since the paradigm failed that sequencing automatically translates into understanding (recursive) genome function (and diseases). No journalist can pinpoint what is missing, as it is up to advanced theory. Drs. Collins and Lander, to defend the establishment, dwell on the positives, how half-FULL is our "medicine cabinet" and how spectacular our technological (sequencing) and medical (genomic medicine) results are. True; the end alludes to “Junk DNA” (98.7%), acknowledging that it hides keys to regulation; yet none announce the paradigm-shift of the principle of recursive genome regulation. A further comment contrasts the "stand-off" by pointing out that "recursive genome function" broke the 100,000 number of hits on Google (see in hologenomics.com "news column). There can be a debate if it is a fractal iterative recursion or some will publish a contending theory, but e.g. Eric Lander et al. (2009) featured on Science cover the fractal nature of the genome. - Pellionisz_at_JunkDNA.com
REMant 07/14/2010 02:16 PM Report
Private goods are by definition rivalrous and the more rivalrous the good the higher return it can command, more so in less developed economies, with their lesser equality of means and abilities. Development turns, as it were, the private, public, and the exclusivity dwindles along with the margin. Therefore to argue that we need public goods because the private sector will not provide them, as Keynesians such as Samuelson do, is usually only an argument for authoritarianism, all the more if public provision stymies private initiative, robs it of capital, and weakens the economy. That private firms will not provide a good or service which can be availed of by all, like lighthouses, or the Internet, while true, is only so in very few cases and easily handled via private subscription or advertising. A more cogent argument that private provision is inefficient while often true, as well, is countered by the fact that as technologies develop market concentration increases by itself and that the government only aids the inefficiency by anti-trust measures, or creating regulated monopolies. Regarding the latter, the one thing above all that govt should avoid is providing support to private firms, but it needs to understand the difference between market concentration due to monopolizing and simply because of efficiency.
MiguelE 07/14/2010 02:29 AM Report
I was glad to finally hear somebody on your show come out and declare that we are working with a flawed and overly simplistic paradigm. Sadly, this declaration had to come from a journalist rather than from any of the many medical doctors you frequently have on your show. As they say, to a hammer every problem looks like a nail. By extension, to the medical geneticist every disease looks like a gene mutation. Charlie Rose, if you want to give your audience a glimpse of what is missing from the current genetic paradigm of disease, and why gene mutations account for only a small percentage of risk, you should have someone like Paul Ewald on your show. My guess is that he would shed light on the pervasive epigenetic interactions that exist between human cells and an abundant symbiotic microbial flora, and the implications this has for the development of chronic illness. This is the environmental part of the equation that is frequently neglected by your medical guests. I don't know why Francis Collins and Eric Lander didn't mention this exciting area of research while on your show, especially given it's relevance to disease and the fact that most of this work is now funded by NIH and NSF. After all, this is not some crazy theory but rather an entire field called metagenomics. We know that inflammation precedes almost all of the common chronic illnesses and that inflammation is often linked to microbial antigens, and now we are finding microbial genomes left and right within the human host. Could it be that eminent medical scientists are simply too embarrassed to suddenly have to throw their support behind a hypothesis that seems so cogent and yet became the purview of a few marginalized doctors during the last half century? This might be an appropriate question to ask your medical guests in an upcoming show.
PeterMelzer 07/13/2010 11:14 PM Report
The ALK gene appears modified only in fewer than every tenth lung cancer patient. People with autism are known to be distinguished by more than 100 rare gene variants despite of the high inheritability of the disorder. The application of genomics to medicine is not going to be like the Manhattan Project, in which the path was clear and only sufficient federal funds had to be allocated. We may have to wait patiently for payback.
MPrunchak 07/13/2010 11:09 PM Report
In his introduction to his novel, Jurrasic Park, Michael Crichton raises some of the issues which are playing out now in the search for cures using genome research. For a time, scientists went to investors hoping to become wealthy as CEOs of companies that would develop amazing cures. Surely, these investors were going to get restless and pull back. Your guests seem to be saying that there was no expectation of cures by this point. I think that there was a pitch to investors in the beginning which built an expectation in the public. Extending life by one year may be a step in the right direction or it may be an expensive path to a brick wall. I think I saw Drs. Lander and Collins squirming a bit. They now say that the public sector and academia is the place for the research and I think that humble Albert Einstein is smiling in his grave. I encourage people to read the Introduction to Jurrasic Park. I use it in my English classroom. Mr. Wade, keep following this story. Perhaps now that this is not being driven by greed, we'll get somewhere.
mikea987 07/13/2010 10:43 PM Report
Eric Lander sounds like a salesman. And when was it cool for a guest to ask another guest a question on Charlie's show? No respect!