Precision Medicine will need to get out of the pharma silo that is based on symptoms


Welcome to the digital era of biology (and to this modest blog I started in early 2005).

To cure many diseases, like cancer or cystic fibrosis, we will need to target genes (mutations, for ex.), not organs! I am convinced that the future of replacement medicine (organ transplant) is genomics (the science of the human genome). In 10 years we will be replacing (modifying) genes; not organs!


Anticipating the $100 genome era and the P4™ medicine revolution. P4 Medicine (Predictive, Personalized, Preventive, & Participatory): Catalyzing a Revolution from Reactive to Proactive Medicine.


After low-cost airlines (Ryanair, Easyjet ...) comes "low-cost" participatory medicine. Some of my readers have recently christened this long-lasting, clumsy attempt at e-writing of mine "THE LOW-COSTE INNOVATION BLOG". I am an
early adopter of scientific MOOCs. My name's Catherine Coste. I've earned myself four MIT digital diplomas: 7.00x, 7.28x1, 7.28.x2 and 7QBWx. Instructor of 7.00x: Eric Lander PhD.

Upcoming books: Airpocalypse, a medical thriller (action taking place in Beijing) 2017; Jesus CRISPR Superstar, a sci-fi -- French title: La Passion du CRISPR (2018).

I love Genomics. Would you rather donate your data, or... your vital organs?

Audio files on this blog are Windows files ; if you have a Mac, you might want to use VLC (http://www.videolan.org) to read them.

Concernant les fichiers son ou audio (audio files) sur ce blog : ce sont des fichiers Windows ; pour les lire sur Mac, il faut les ouvrir avec VLC (http://www.videolan.org).


"A scientific paper with a serious flaw gets through peer review and is now in the permanent record. What can we do about this kind of situation?"

MITx MOOC course "Quantitative Biology Workshop" 7QBWx: 

"Bad-Scientist XX submitts his 'p' value and his explanation to the journal editor, and the editor accepts the changes and publishs the paper. There are no rules enforcing that analysis code is submitted with papers for review, but as we know, sometimes it takes a lot of eyes to find a bug, and Bob isn't exactly motivated to debug his code in the first place. He thinks that if it produces a number, then it's right. So a paper with a serious flaw gets through peer review and is now in the permanent record. What can we do about this kind of situation?"

My answer: Well, there is this rise of open, post-publication review on Facebook and Twitter. Include educated patients who took MITx MOOCs.

MITx Answer:

"There is no one right answer here. But if you're thinking about it, you are on the right track. Here are some ideas for what we can do individually:

Treat code-writing as a craft. Always be learning, teaching, and improving.
Treat doing science as a sacred duty. Career ambitions will often conflict with your sacred call to objectivity. Stay objective.
Do not be a scientist who's "bad at coding". If you get behind the wheel of a computer and write any code, don't endanger others while doing so!
Keep your code hosted at
github. Learn version control. Let others see your code and help to make sure it's right. Help others by reviewing their code.
Write unit tests.
 

Don't be embarrased by your code. Learning to code well takes a very long time. Embrace the void of the unknown - just aim to be slowly improving, and you will be ahead of the curve in no time."

Copyrights: MITx, edX.


Aucun commentaire: