Originally posted by sonhouseI often wonder where these sensational breakthroughs disappear to. Some wonderful new technique is found to cure some ailment or another in, say, 1985, and then there's not a peep about it for the next quarter of a century.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-07-gene-permanently-cancer-cell-proliferation.html#ajTabs
Looks like a real breakthrough!
Originally posted by SoothfastOftentimes they get bogged down in government regulations. I have a friend who devoted his life to working on immortality. He said the government was really slow to approve new drugs, every step of the way, years and years for each new step in the research.
I often wonder where these sensational breakthroughs disappear to. Some wonderful new technique is found to cure some ailment or another in, say, 1985, and then there's not a peep about it for the next quarter of a century.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou don't need government approval for research. Only for actually using the drugs on people. If he was trying to make money out of it to fund the next project then you might have a case.
Oftentimes they get bogged down in government regulations. I have a friend who devoted his life to working on immortality. He said the government was really slow to approve new drugs, every step of the way, years and years for each new step in the research.
Originally posted by SoothfastSome of them are so successful that you forget that they exist. Vaccines against deadly diseases are like that.
I often wonder where these sensational breakthroughs disappear to. Some wonderful new technique is found to cure some ailment or another in, say, 1985, and then there's not a peep about it for the next quarter of a century.
But a large part of it is the way News has a strong bias on reporting the negatives and our minds work that way to some extent too.
I guess the biggest news in my life time is AIDS medications and those have been developed gradually over time and transformed an imminent death sentence into a near manageable disease.
Anyone who's been through the cancer mill - and I have, twice - knows that improvements in cancer treatment are filtering through to the patients all the time at a rapid rate. They just don't get the publicity that the initial discovery got. When it comes to "terminal" diseases the FDA doesn't slow things down half as much as they do when it's something like a diuretic or appetite suppressant.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe wanted to research on people.
You don't need government approval for research. Only for actually using the drugs on people. If he was trying to make money out of it to fund the next project then you might have a case.
I'm surprised you, an African, know so much about US pharmaceudical laws.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI know very little about US pharmaceutical laws. But most Americans know very little too. How much you know about such things depends on what you read or who you know much more than what country you live in.
He wanted to research on people.
I'm surprised you, an African, know so much about US pharmaceudical laws.
There are good reasons for strict laws regarding research on people there is a well known a history of abuse.
I believe a lot of ageing research can be carried out on other animals similar to us, though I realise that there is sometimes no substitute to human 'guinea pigs'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou do know this op is about genes not drugs, right?
I know very little about US pharmaceutical laws. But most Americans know very little too. How much you know about such things depends on what you read or who you know much more than what country you live in.
There are good reasons for strict laws regarding research on people there is a well known a history of abuse.
I believe a lot of ageing research ca ...[text shortened]... similar to us, though I realise that there is sometimes no substitute to human 'guinea pigs'.