Browsed by
Tag: biomedical research

SENS Research Foundation Joins the Global #GivingTuesday Movement – Press Release by SENS Research Foundation

SENS Research Foundation Joins the Global #GivingTuesday Movement – Press Release by SENS Research Foundation

Comments 0 Comment
The New Renaissance Hat
SENS Research Foundation
November 28, 2015
******************************
Every Dollar Contributed Up to the First $5,000 Will Be Quadrupled, Turning into $20,000.
 ***

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — November 24, 2015 — The SENS Research Foundation (SRF), a non-profit organization focused on transforming the way the world researches and treats age-related disease, has joined #GivingTuesday, a global day of giving that harnesses the collective power of individuals, communities and organizations to encourage philanthropy and celebrate generosity worldwide. Every dollar donated to SRF up to the first $5,000 will be quadrupled, making every dollar raised turn into $20,000.

Occurring this year on December 1, #GivingTuesday is held annually on the Tuesday after Thanksgiving (in the U.S.) and the widely recognized shopping events Black Friday and Cyber Monday to kick-off the holiday giving season and inspire people to collaborate in improving their local communities and to give back in impactful ways to the charities and causes they support.

SENS Research Foundation is aiming to reach a goal of $20,000 with the help of contributors who have pledged to match each dollar raised up to the first $5,000. The Croeni Foundation, a philanthropic organization dedicated to giving, the environment and health, has pledged to match the first $5,000 raised dollar for dollar. The foundation gave SRF an unrestricted $5,000 earlier this year, as well. Aubrey de Grey, CSO of SENS Research Foundation, has offered a dollar for dollar matching challenge up to $5,000. And Fight Aging! will match every dollar up to $125,000 through December 31, 2015. Fight Aging! encourages the development of medical technologies, lifestyles, and other means to help people live comfortably, healthily, and capably for as long as they desire.

“We are looking forward to participating in #GivingTuesday for a second year, and offer our thanks to Jan Croeni and the Croeni Foundation, as well as Aubrey de Grey and Fight Aging! for their support,” said Jerri Barrett, vice president of outreach, SENS Research Foundation. “Today’s cost for the treatment and care of chronic diseases of aging costs around $40,000 per second and will only continue to go up, as we spend more money per patient, while the number of patients is increasing. As a society, we need to change our ways and start treating age-related diseases more intelligently. The funds we raise on #GivingTuesday will help facilitate our efforts to do just that, as we work to continue learning how to prevent or reverse age-related diseases.”

Those who are interested in joining SENS Research Foundation’s #GivingTuesday initiative can donate at www.sens.org/donate. To learn more about #GivingTuesday participants and activities or to join the celebration of giving, please visit: http://www.givingtuesday.org/

About SENS Research Foundation (SRF)

SENS Research Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that works to research, develop, and promote comprehensive regenerative medicine solutions for the diseases of aging. SRF is focused on a damage repair paradigm for treating the diseases of aging, which it advances through scientific research, advocacy, and education. SENS Research Foundation supports research projects at universities and institutes around the world with the goal of curing such age-related diseases as heart disease, cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease. Educating the public and training researchers to support a growing regenerative medicine field are also major endeavors of the organization that are being accomplished though advocacy campaigns and educational programs. For more information, visit www.sens.org.

Media Contact:
Jerri Barrett
408-204-7229
jerri.barrett@sens.org

Is the FDA Too Conservative or Too Aggressive? – Article by Alex Tabarrok

Is the FDA Too Conservative or Too Aggressive? – Article by Alex Tabarrok

Comments 0 Comment
The New Renaissance HatAlex Tabarrok
September 21, 2015
******************************

I have long argued that the FDA has an incentive to delay the introduction of new drugs because approving a bad drug (Type I error) has more severe consequences for the FDA than does failing to approve a good drug (Type II error). In the former case at least some victims are identifiable and the New York Times writes stories about them and how they died because the FDA failed. In the latter case, when the FDA fails to approve a good drug, people die but the bodies are buried in an invisible graveyard.

In an excellent new paper (SSRN also here) Vahid Montazerhodjat and Andrew Lo use a Bayesian analysis to model the optimal tradeoff in clinical trials between sample size, Type I and Type II error. Failing to approve a good drug is more costly, for example, the more severe the disease. Thus, for a very serious disease, we might be willing to accept a greater Type I error in return for a lower Type II error. The number of people with the disease also matters. Holding severity constant, for example, the more people with the disease the more you want to increase sample size to reduce Type I error. All of these variables interact.

In an innovation the authors use the U.S. Burden of Disease Study to find the number of deaths and the disability severity caused by each major disease. Using this data they estimate the costs of failing to approve a good drug. Similarly, using data on the costs of adverse medical treatment they estimate the cost of approving a bad drug.

Putting all this together the authors find that the FDA is often dramatically too conservative:

…we show that the current standards of drug-approval are weighted more on avoiding a Type I error (approving ineffective therapies) rather than a Type II error (rejecting effective therapies). For example, the standard Type I error of 2.5% is too conservative for clinical trials of therapies for pancreatic cancer—a disease with a 5-year survival rate of 1% for stage IV patients (American Cancer Society estimate, last updated 3 February 2013). The BDA-optimal size for these clinical trials is 27.9%, reflecting the fact that, for these desperate patients, the cost of trying an ineffective drug is considerably less than the cost of not trying an effective one.

(The authors also find that the FDA is occasionally a little too aggressive but these errors are much smaller, for example, the authors find that for prostate cancer therapies the optimal significance level is 1.2% compared to a standard rule of 2.5%.)

The result is important especially because in a number of respects, Montazerhodjat and Lo underestimate the costs of FDA conservatism. Most importantly, the authors are optimizing at the clinical trial stage assuming that the supply of drugs available to be tested is fixed. Larger trials, however, are more expensive and the greater the expense of FDA trials the fewer new drugs will be developed. Thus, a conservative FDA reduces the flow of new drugs to be tested. In a sense, failing to approve a good drug has two costs, the opportunity cost of lives that could have been saved and the cost of reducing the incentive to invest in R&D. In contrast, approving a bad drug while still an error at least has the advantage of helping to incentivize R&D (similarly, a subsidy to R&D incentivizes R&D in a sense mostly by covering the costs of failed ventures).

The Montazerhodjat and Lo framework is also static, there is one test and then the story ends. In reality, drug approval has an interesting asymmetric dynamic. When a drug is approved for sale, testing doesn’t stop but moves into another stage, a combination of observational testing and sometimes more RCTs–this, after all, is how adverse events are discovered. Thus, Type I errors are corrected. On the other hand, for a drug that isn’t approved the story does end. With rare exceptions, Type II errors are never corrected. The Montazerhodjat and Lo framework could be interpreted as the reduced form of this dynamic process but it’s better to think about the dynamism explicitly because it suggests that approval can come in a range–for example, approval with a black label warning, approval with evidence grading and so forth. As these procedures tend to reduce the costs of Type I error they tend to increase the costs of FDA conservatism.

Montazerhodjat and Lo also don’t examine the implications of heterogeneity of preferences or of disease morbidity and mortality. Some people, for example, are severely disabled by diseases that on average aren’t very severe–the optimal tradeoff for these patients will be different than for the average patient. One size doesn’t fit all. In the standard framework it’s tough luck for these patients. But if the non-FDA reviewing apparatus (patients/physicians/hospitals/HMOs/USP/Consumer Reports and so forth) works relatively well, and this is debatable but my work on off-label prescribing suggests that it does, this weighs heavily in favor of relatively large samples but low thresholds for approval. What the FDA is really providing is information and we don’t need product bans to convey information. Thus, heterogeneity plus a reasonable effective post-testing choice process, mediates in favor of a Consumer Reports model for the FDA.

The bottom line, however, is that even without taking into account these further points, Montazerhodjat and Lo find that the FDA is far too conservative especially for severe diseases. FDA regulations may appear to be creating safe and effective drugs but they are also creating a deadly caution.

Hat tip: David Balan.

This post first appeared at Marginal Revolution.

Alex Tabarrok is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He blogs at Marginal Revolution with Tyler Cowen. 
G. Stolyarov II Interviews Adam Alonzi Regarding Emerging Biotech Research

G. Stolyarov II Interviews Adam Alonzi Regarding Emerging Biotech Research

Comments 0 Comment
The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II and Adam Alonzi
August 28, 2015
******************************

On August 23, 2015, Mr. Stolyarov invited Adam Alonzi to share the insights he was able to glean from many recent discussions with biotechnology entrepreneurs and researchers. Mr. Alonzi was able to subsequently edit some of his remarks to remedy the technical issues with audio quality during the broadcast. His edited version appears below.

See the original interview recording:

Adam Alonzi is the author of Praying for Death and A Plank in Reason. He is also a futurist, inventor, DIY enthusiast, biotechnologist, programmer, molecular gastronomist, consummate dilletante and columnist at The Indian Economist. Read his blog here. Listen to his podcasts at http://adamalonzi.libsyn.com.

Adam Alonzi’s Interviews
– Elizabeth Parrish – BioViva
– Alex Zhavoroknov – InSilico Medicine
– Maria Konovalenko – Science for Life Extension Foundation and Longevity Cookbook
– Luis Arana – Robots Without Borders

Life Extension Advocacy Foundation Launches Lifespan.io – Press Release by Life Extension Advocacy Foundation

Life Extension Advocacy Foundation Launches Lifespan.io – Press Release by Life Extension Advocacy Foundation

Comments 0 Comment
The New Renaissance HatLife Extension Advocacy Foundation
August 28, 2015

******************************

Editor’s Note: Visit and contribute to Lifespan.io’s first crowdfunding research project, the SENS Research Foundation’s MitoSENS Mitochondrial Repair Project, here. I have personally donated $100 and encourage all supporters of life-extension research to assist this effort in reaching its $30,000 funding goal. ~ Gennady Stolyarov II, August 27, 2015

LEAF_1NEW YORK, Aug. 26, 2015 – The Life Extension Advocacy Foundation (LEAF) officially launches Lifespan.io, an online platform designed to bridge the gap between longevity researchers and the public who support breakthroughs happening in this burgeoning field.

Lifespan.io is a website designed to house today’s most promising life extension projects. People are invited to contribute financially to the ones they wish to support. This unique approach to crowdfunding gives the public the opportunity to learn about longevity research, meet the people making it happen, and allows them to be a part of promising, historical breakthroughs in life extension technologies.

Supported by biologists George Church and David Sinclair, who are members of LEAF’s Scientific Advisory Board, Lifespan.io is a collaborative environment that invites projects from a wide variety of sources.  Research organizations, nonprofit institutions, citizen scientists, as well as forprofit entities, may submit their projects. Submissions are evaluated and approved based on the legitimacy, the extent of the focus on extending healthy human lifespan, and the viability of the venture.

Organizations submitting launch projects include Harvard Medical School and the SENS Research Foundation.

LEAF President Keith Comito says, “By inviting the public to participate, the organization is creating an environment where everyone can be involved and have a stake in the results. Equitable distribution of the benefits that life extension technologies have to offer is the key to achieving the results we all want: healthier and longer lives. LEAF welcomes everyone to join us and discover more.”

LEAF also aims to educate and inform the public about longevity research and life-expanding advancements. Lifespan.io has a YouTube Channel, Facebook, and Twitter profile where people can find the latest in lifespan, aging, and longevity news. To participate in and lend support to current projects, visit www.Lifespan.io. Join the conversation with the #CrowdFundtheCure hashtag.

Those wishing to submit a project for funding consideration, or who want additional information about the various methods of promotional and scientific counseling offered by LEAF, are also invited to learn more on the website.

LEAF_2ABOUT LIFE EXTENSION ADVOCACY FOUNDATION

The Life Extension Advocacy Foundation is a nonprofit 501(C)(3) organization dedicated to promoting life extension, longevity, and aging research through crowdfunding and advocacy initiatives. Its mission is to connect the researchers and scientists developing the latest advancements with the people who support them through the Lifespan.io platform. Endorsed by top scientific leaders and experts from multiple disciplines, LEAF’s goal is to make all human life healthier and more vital, as well as longer. For more information, please visit www.Lifespan.io.

Photo – http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20150825/260842

Media Contact: Desireé Duffy, Life Extension Advocacy Foundation, 6614789165, info@lifespan.io

News distributed by PR Newswire iReach: https://ireach.prnewswire.com

SOURCE: Life Extension Advocacy Foundation

Computer Games, Distributed Computing, and Life Extension – Video by G. Stolyarov II

Computer Games, Distributed Computing, and Life Extension – Video by G. Stolyarov II

Comments 0 Comment

Imagine if it were possible to help cure disease and lengthen human lifespans simply by playing one’s computer games of choice. Here, Mr. Stolyarov describes a concept for doing just that, and he welcomes efforts from any of you to help bring it about.

Remember to LIKE, FAVORITE, and SHARE this video in order to spread rational discourse on this issue.

Support these video-creation efforts by donating here and here.

References
– “Computer Games, Distributed Computing, and Life Extension” – Article by G. Stolyarov II – The Rational Argumentator
– Article and discussion on Transhumanity.net
– Mr. Stolyarov’s Page of Distributed Computing Statistics
– Rosetta@home
– Folding@home
– World Community Grid
– Human Proteome Folding
– Help Conquer Cancer
– FoldIt
– “Public Solves Protein Structure” – Jef Akst – The Scientist – September 18, 2011
– “ALS Cause and Protein-Folding Prediction – Thoughts on Two Impressive Scientific Discoveries ” – Video by G. Stolyarov II – September 20, 2011

Computer Games, Distributed Computing, and Life Extension – Article by G. Stolyarov II

Computer Games, Distributed Computing, and Life Extension – Article by G. Stolyarov II

Comments 0 Comment
The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
February 26, 2013
******************************

Imagine if it were possible to help cure disease and lengthen human lifespans simply by playing one’s computer games of choice. Here, I describe a concept for doing just that, and I welcome efforts from any readers to help bring it about.

To make a practical, concrete difference in accelerating the advent of radical human life extension, one of the most powerful contributions a layman (non-biologist, non-doctor, non-engineer) can make is to donate idle computer time to distributed computing projects focused on biomedical research. Immensely promising distributed computing endeavors include Rosetta@home, Folding@home, and World Community Grid’s Human Proteome Folding and Help Conquer Cancer projects.  I am a major participant in many of these projects. (I rank in the 98.6th percentile for all distributed computing users by total credit and in the 99.5th percentile by recent average credit.) My computer runs these projects almost nonstop, and I have even made several upgrades, partly to enhance my contribution.  Distributed computing enables scientific research to occur at rates and scales previously inconceivable. Researchers utilize thousands of computers worldwide to perform incredible numbers of complex calculations that they could not have processed in their labs alone.

Billions of computers now exist, and it seems so easy to just download a distributed computing client and let it run while the computer is idle. The computer owner does not need to be technically knowledgeable about the field of research in order to make a positive and direct contribution. Yet participation in distributed computing projects is still orders of magnitude below where it should be. For instance, as of February 23, 2013, Folding@home has 1,674,431 all-time donors of computer resources; the front page suggests that 167,833 computers are currently active in the project. Rosetta@home has 355,661 total donors, while World Community Grid has 401,270. The number of people worldwide who care about advancing medical research is surely far larger than this.

 Yet even an easy task like installing a distributed computing client may be beyond the comfort zone of many people with busy, often hectic, lives. If these people take time out of their day for activities not related to their primary occupations, they will do so because they find those activities entertaining, relaxing, or both. Computer games are an immensely popular example; they directly engage hundreds of millions of people worldwide for hundreds of billions of hours every year. If this level of contribution were made to distributed computing projects, we would see the pace of research accelerate tenfold or more.

There is already one game, FoldIt, that attempts to utilize human creativity to directly address one challenge related to life extension: the prediction of protein-folding configurations. FoldIt’s users have even had some success where computer algorithms have not. However, FoldIt’s gameplay is not for everyone, just like any particular genre of computer game will attract some enthusiastic users but will leave others indifferent.

To radically increase the use of distributed computing, I recommend a new approach: the design of computer games that automatically run distributed computing projects in the background when they are played. Players would not need to acquire the game with the purpose of contributing to research projects; their primary motivation should be to enjoy the game. However, one of the marketing points in the game’s favor could be that it would enable people to make a meaningful contribution to research while they enjoyed themselves. Such games would not need to be related to the subject of the research at all; they could be about absolutely anything, and there could be numerous games of this sort made to appeal to a wide variety of consumer demographics. Indeed, creators of existing games could work on ways to link them to distributed computing clients and use this to emphasize their companies’ philanthropic side.

Each game could include an option to activate the distributed computing client even if the game is not being played. In this way, players who come to enjoy their participation in distributed computing projects could extend that participation beyond their gaming sessions. On the other hand, a lot of players would acquire the game just to play it, while being only peripherally aware of the distributed computing aspect. However, their consent to the distributed computing would be a part of the usage agreement associated with the game. They would contribute to important biomedical research by default, just like all of us contribute to the carbon dioxide available to the Earth’s plants simply by exhaling.

I am not a programmer myself, but I strongly encourage any programmer and/or game developer reading this article to develop this proposed connection between any game and a distributed computing project. This concept should be in the public domain, and, to the extent this is possible under current law, I hereby release any original ideas or concepts in this article into the public domain in full. I seek no monetary profit or even credit from such undertakings (though I would be extremely happy to be informed of efforts to implement them). I will benefit considerably if the implementation of this idea radically accelerates life-extension research, and this benefit would certainly be enough for me.  It is in my best interest for numerous parallel, competing, or collaborative efforts to arise in this area, and for many people to try variations on this idea.

I also welcome input from those who can anticipate some of the technical details and challenges of developing games of this sort. For instance, I would be interested in insights regarding the potential ease or difficulty of integrating a distributed computing client with another program. At present, I anticipate that most of the challenges would be technical, rather than legal, since BOINC, one of the most popular clients, is free software released under a GNU Lesser General Public License. My strong recommendation is for any efforts in this area to have an open-source character, welcoming contributions from all parties in order to make the vast benefits of this project realizable. At least some of the games created as a result could be made freely downloadable, so as to entice more people into obtaining them with nothing to lose.

The idea is now out there. I urge you to help make it happen in any way you are able.