Hacker News Reader

Comment by LeanderK | Hacker News Reader

This keeps me up at night. I hope the collective advancement in science makes it possible to defeat cancer some day. I believe/hope that my contribution as a insignificant CS-student helps somebody develop tools that help somebody researching etc.

I am really convinced that every advancement is connected somehow and the collective improvement in efficiency and livings standards makes it possible to commit more resources and train even more students to work on hard problems.

Even the work on something unrelated like React might somehow help if you observe humanity as a whole.

Also f*ck cancer (i read the guidelines and i found no statue against insulting cancer, if there is a user named cancer its a misunderstanding and you should really consider changing your username)

View on HN

There is an immense amount of software work to be done in biotech. Molecular biology research is in need of better automation, analysis, visualization techniques, and on and on. We need folks at all levels. I entered biotech as a web developer and have been able to pick more challenging problems to approach on a monthly basis. We know next to nothing about the human body. Im optimistic that tech will help out us on a stable path towards more robust research practices.

How did you enter it? I'd love to feel I was helping something meaningful with work.

I joined my current company, Transcriptic, which is a biotech startup heavy on software. We are a "lab in the cloud". I just made the decision that I wanted to be in biotech so I looked for the most interesting startup I could find. Zero bio background, all software (web, mostly front end, lots of data viz). I now get to work across the stack, including robotics, and more importantly there is a whole green field of interesting problems to solve.

How would one get started in Biotech?

Please take a look at my replies above :)

My background is distributed computing/grid computing. How can I contribute?

At the UC Berkeley AMPLab we're working on scaling genomics [0], all open source under Apache 2 license. Or more generally, any of the Open Bioinformatics Foundation (OBF)[1] projects could use a hand, open source licenses vary.

[0] - https://github.com/bigdatagenomics/adam

[1] - https://www.open-bio.org/wiki/Main_Page

Oh very cool.

Genomics (as a sister comment mentioned)

Medicinal chemistry and high throughput screening is (becoming) a data science.

Workcells (search for "automated biology workcell"

I'd echo sister posts re: how to get involved. My wife is currently in biotech doing mixed research/slightly CS-ey work and it constantly boggles my mind how antique many of their methods are, but they barely have money to keep running let alone pay for the expertise and/or infrastructure to leverage modern computing. Companies that have more freedom tend to be more restrictive I've found, and without a PHD it can be hard to get a foot in the door. Been doing data engineer/distributed systems/full stack engineer for almost a decade now and the recurring feeling of "I should be doing more to contribute to humanity" is often followed by contemplation of pursuing bio, but frankly I've been in such a different part of industry I don't even know where to start without heavily hamstringing my current career (e.g. going back for a PHD, potentially in another field)

Yes there's tons of low hanging fruit, you just have to get your foot in the door somewhere to get eyes on them. A lot of biology is fairly rudimentary processes. It's like baking a cake. Much of medicinal chemistry is just exploring a space of molecules and screening them to find one that does X. And of course software is very good at modeling simple processes.

As I mentioned in another comment, I actively decided to seek out a company in the space to join. I didn't know anyone really in bio before that. Another option is to get involved with an academic lab that is trying to bring software into their work (and there are many). Below are some interesting folks /projects merging bio and code (disclosure: I work for Transcriptic):

Using nothing but code to engineer proteins. blog.booleanbiotech.com/genetic_engineering_pipeline_python.html

Autoprotocol -- JSON specification for defining biological protocols autoprotocol.org

Using visual programming to describe bio protocols http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/10/14/081075

Engineering bacteria with code and automation. www.zymergen.com

Open Source Projects/Platforms:

ADAM (Big Data Genomics, code-base I think worked currently by UC Berkeley AMPLab and Microsoft Research group focused on cancer research) https://github.com/bigdatagenomics/adam/labels/pick%20me%20u...

BioConductor (R package that is very popular for crunching different genomic analysis, RNA-Seq)https://www.bioconductor.org/developers/

Galaxy (Platform for reproducible genomics workflows in the cloud)https://wiki.galaxyproject.org/Support

Public Available Data Sets:

Cancer Genome Atlas (contains expression data for different kinds of cancer) http://cancergenome.nih.gov/

NCBI Short Reads Archive (contains the genome assembly of a lot of published papers): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra

European Nucleotide Archive: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena, e.g.,

For a recent major paper, "The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 genomes from 142 diverse populations"; you can grep for "accession code"(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...), follow the link and download the whole raw assemblies of all samples here: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB9586

MOOC:

https://www.edx.org/xseries/genomics-data-analysis

https://www.coursera.org/specializations/bioinformatics

StackOverflow:

https://www.biostars.org/

http://seqanswers.com/

Jobs:

NYGC, JCVI, CRB, Sanger, BGI, Broad, NIH, NCBI, Janelia Farm; any research group in universities; any informatics job at pharmaceutical or pharma startups.

We all die at some point. While I too abhor cancer I find hard to fear it more than any other thing that can kill me - a stroke, a car accident, etc. The universe is out to get us - we've evolved into tough bastard but we've not defeated mortality.

Cancer seems more scary to me than a stroke or a fatal car accident because you can try to prevent those things. Health choices can decrease chances of a stroke, being an alert/careful driver can decrease chance of an accident. Cancer though...I mean yeah you can avoid longterm sun exposure or not smoke, but there are so many out-there types of cancers that just swoop in out of nowhere that you don't stand a chance of preventing.

Obviously you can't live your life in fear like that, but I think there's good reason to be more fearful or at least angry about cancer than something like a stroke/wreck.

with terminal cancer, you get time to set your life in order, say goodbye to your friends and family, and try to make a difference (pertinent given the example set by p).

> and try to make a difference

The cynic in me assumes that with children and a spouse, you're most likely too busy filling out forms and applications that ensure that they will not be screwed over by insurance companies and medical providers.

When it comes to cars, nothing is stopping some yahoo not paying any attention from careening into you no matter how careful you are.

In many ways it's not preventing accidents that's important it's preventing people getting hurt.

Being a defensive driver can drastically change your odds of being killed by some random yahoo. Further, the kind of car you drive can make a significant difference and improvements in car design are largely responsible for a huge reduction in fatalities.

Remember, our dealing with V^2 and slow reaction time so a 50MPH car has half the energy of a 70MPH car.

Yeah, I mean, I agree, but I got rear-ended twice in the past year and it's changed my perspective a bit.

For what it's worth, we have also drastically reduced exposure to carcinogens for most people.

Of course not. The point is there are things one can actively do to decrease risk (though not eliminate it). With many types of cancer that isn't the case.

But how is that any different from getting enough sleep, foregoing tobacco and unhealthy foods, etc.?

Odds. As you get older your chance of getting cancer increases substantially.[1]

Getting older doesn't increase your changes of getting in a car accident.

1: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...

> Getting older doesn't increase your changes of getting in a car accident.

I beg to differ.

> In 2012, there were almost 36 million licensed drivers ages 65 and older in the United States.1 Driving helps older adults stay mobile and independent. But the risk of being injured or killed in a motor vehicle crash increases as you age. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/older_adult_drivers/

By choosing not to drive and being vigilant while crossing the street, you definitely reduce your cross-section (although drivers do plow into pedestrians every once in a while)

Cancer is scary bc of the lack of education about it in general across the global population (including the medical professionals). the Research and Technology and etc change slow but quickly, effective but ineffective...it is based on various perspectives. And the "cause" of cancer is simple and complicated and of the slight unknown...it is a long discussion. From a now 2 1/2 year post awake Brain Surgery w 90% malignant cancerous tumor removed, radiation and now bc of my re-direction of my tech biz and research/genetics, I have gene mutations discovered that generally put me on the scale to a longer lease, if you will, but this mutation has be picked up by the good ole' immune system and new research points to a intersection in the future with a increasing possibility of attacking the mutation and then my cancer specifics hit the "launch button" and go red hot to a nasty grade 4, quickly...but that is if I do nothing. I'm not the type :) but the point is, as all cancers are scary, some have become very treatable, we are still human and the relationship between each cancer usually has a genetic connection to others to at least one magnitude or more.

> hard to fear it more than any other thing that can kill me - a stroke, a car accident, etc.

Hm. I wonder your age. Young folk seem to think death impossibly foreign, and fear it / ignore it all equally. Older folk, that have had more first-hand experience with the decline of the flesh in themselves and those they grew up with, have more an appreciation for the difference between an abrupt death in a car accident, and a slow dissolution like cancer. Quite a lot of people fear dying more than they do death.

Sorry, I didn't mean to speak of death in dismissive form.

I've seen too many relatives and those close to me perish in various of ways before old age not to care about it. To me all forms of it ... just feel equally bad in the end from the point of fearing some personal fate or another. My view is not of someone oblivious to life's hardship. Life hits you, you take the punches, and stand as long as you can.

"Cancer" in general does not mean a slow death. Some forms can kill within weeks of a diagnosis due to quickly arising medical complications.

My intent was certainly not to be dismissive of the fate of Pieter and other cancer victims.

Radiation and chemo therapies are one of the most horrific things one can endure.

Depending on the type of cancer, you can go in a few weeks, months, or fight the battle for years.

Even if you endure and persist, which gets progressively easier for a lot of cancers thanks to more advanced therapies, you have to fear recurrence.

I'm not at all opposed to ending one s own life if done without severe psychological issues and done thoughtfully after plenty consideration.

Of course, if you regulate assisted suicide, as some countries in Europe have done, it leads down a very slippery slope. Who makes the decision on whether you are allowed to end your own life?

Most current religions frown upon suicide as a sin. Life is god given and not yours to decide upon (Islam, Christianity). Or suicide is viewed as an unjustified interference in the natural order (Hinduism). And therefore most of our societies reject it.

Admittedly, most suicides that are not connected to terminal illness manifest due to psychological / neurological illness and despair that might be cured or managed with proper therapy and medication, making a return to a happy life possible.

It's a fascinating and very multi-facetted issue to think about.

>If done without severe psychological issues and done thoughtfully after plenty consideration.

I'm even mixed with psychological issues on this. We can help a lot of depression; some folks with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and a slew of others. But some, help is just barely help. If they've been trying treatment for 15-20 years as an adult, and have found life to be agonizing for the most part, and they've talked it over with a psychiatrist (who could have proceedures for due consideration)... yeah, I can't say I oppose it.

This does lead back to: Who is allowed to decide whether you live or die? The slippery slope you were speaking of : To me, those are simply beginnings. It is a step above complete illegality.

If you're fine with a significant margin of error with people's lives, it's a step above. If you believe psychiatry is a mature field (it's not) it might even make sense.

It's your own life to take and as long as your brain still works and you have some freedom of movement, nobody can actually stop you from doing it if you're so determined.

And granted, when talking about mental illnesses that are considered treatable, like depression, you can't expect assistance for suicide. But when talking terminal illnesses, like cancer or dementia, then not legalizing assisted deaths is not only dangerous to others, but also an act of extreme selfishness.

We're basically condemning people to suffer extreme physical pain and/or insanity until their last breath. And as a non-practicing Christian, I suspect the reason has less to do with God and more to do with not wanting to take on some fucking responsibility for others.

"not wanting to take on some fucking responsibility for others."

They'll have to explain their sins themselves, but by observation I think its giving up that they oppose.

Going up to OPs question of who gets to decide, decades ago when my father died of some weird fast moving liver cancer no one religious had any issue with the numerous treatment options all somewhat fatal or with the concept of being able to select a treatment plan. So the oncologist says chemo option A means X amount of pain and 90% chance you'll be dead in Y months, and option B, C, D, all different tradeoffs, or we could try whatever else and you'll get Y months with X amount of pain, or do nothing and you'll be gone in about Y weeks or etc etc. Basically the patient and team of doctors pick a death date which results in an associated level of pain and medical treatment (medical profit). The Christians don't seem to mind "pick a death date" they just seem very unhappy with the idea of the treatment plan being "give up completely" "game over".

There seems this weird assumption that people can't handle picking a death date or it would warp culture too much, but any cancer patient with more than one medically approved treatment option is pretty much picking their date as it is today. Especially if its terminal cancer. Adding a third, fourth, fifth treatment option of "once we agree your quality of life is below level X then you're done" isn't going to be a huge addition or huge problem.

My wife has power of attorney or whatever its called over her Alzheimer's damaged great uncle, she has full control over all of his medical treatment plan. The only real moral or ethical argument I can think of is if it were made legal maybe only only legal agreements drafted after the law change should be valid. Although then again, the whole point of her being in charge is he trusted his niece the most so if he were competent he would likely continue to trust her the most anyway.

The way I see it is pretty straightforward: my life, my decision. That suicide and euthanasia are illegal is illogical to me; it just seems like a way for life insurance companies to avoid paying.

That only works as long as you're legally competent and there are plenty of scenarios where you'd be suffering terribly but would not longer be in control of your life.

I didn't think you were being dismissive of it in any sort of callous or rude way. My comment was made in earnest, and honestly, without criticism. I don't think there's anything wrong with people at different stages in their lives having different outlooks on life and mortality; those outlooks are shaped by time and experience.

A young person generally hasn't seen (many or any of) their close friends grow infirm and die, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that they don't see life through that lens yet.

Arent abrupt deaths more likely to happen to a young person? Shouldn't a young person then not fear cancer (less likely) any more than accidental death?

I wonder your age. Old folk tend to assume they have some sort of wisdom and that they can't possibly be wrong simply because of extra years spent on Earth.

Haha, 45yo geezer here! And allow me to retort w/ another broad stroke:

Young people tend to assume they know a lot about things they have never experienced.

Rest assured, what misconceptions time does not fix for us, death certainly will.

edit: changed 'you' to 'us', none get out alive.

Malignancy is the #4 leading cause of death in the US in 15-24s and 25-34s. #2, behind unintentional injury, if one excludes homocide/suicide (you may, or may not - I'll leave that to you). By 35-44 it's taken #2 in earnest, with homocide and suicide falling away behind heart disease, to take spots 4 and 5. That's as of 2010, at least.

I'm not "old folk," but I do work in medicine. I may have seen a bit more death and death-fear than you. Then again, maybe not; I don't know you.

The only way to win is not to play. I'm past 50. I'm not overly fussed about dying, it's not like it's avoidable. I'm not overly fussed about how either as I'll get what I'm given. Of course I'd prefer a pain-free exit rather than a 2 year painful decline to incoherent as my father had. Unless you go in your sleep I suspect all routes have pain as the final memory. I have no fear of any of it.

The only thing actually on my radar is being aware I have limited time, and am past half-way.

For those who die slowly, or lose faculties, the process seems unfair. For those who have a sudden exit the event seems unfair and can leave much unresolved and unsaid.

Euthanasia, to me, seems to be the least worst option if I should ever find myself facing a drawn out exit. I get a bit frustrated those professing relgion like to play the "you must not" card. It's not their business unless I share their belief, which I don't.

So I'll get the exit the universe decides. One day I'll be part of a star.

> It's not their business unless I share their belief, which I don't.

And even if you do share it, it's not.

It's pretty obvious to me most people debating how unethical euthanasia is have no exposure to needlessly prolonged suffering or just favor dogmatic cruelty over humane treatment of people. The kind of folks who think mother Theresa was a saint with her horror houses of suffering.

It amazes me how many people will favor putting a suffering animal out of its misery, then fight tooth and nail against offering that same mercy to their fellow human beings.

In many cases, it's social virtue signalling, with no real sapience behind the actions.

See how virtuous I am empathizing with lower-order animals' suffering.

See how virtuous I am championing the sanctity of human life.

A lot of the latter can be mitigated: make those who want human life preserved "at all costs" pay cash-over-the-barrel into that "at all costs" effort, on an individual basis. Voluntary, elective euthanasia becomes an option when no one steps up to pay for the extraordinary efforts. They either withdraw their opinion immediately when they can no longer externalize their social virtue signalling choice's costs onto everyone else, or they go broke very soon and those who are suffering can make a free choice.

Or we can pursue the sane choice and legislate elective assisted euthanasia with safeguards like Switzerland's or other rationally-chosen parameters. It is long past time to recognize that our medical technology has far outstripped our ability to reliably deliver an acceptably high quality of life.

"Voluntary, elective euthanasia becomes an option when no one steps up to pay for the extraordinary efforts."

Generally euthanasia is considered an ethical option when medicine can't help anymore, and any prolonging of life would either be useless (patient is braindead) or unable to mitigate the pain of the patient.

Personally I think bringing economics in wil obfuscate the moral discussion.

In the US, officially-sanctioned euthanasia that I was personally acquainted with in a hospice took the form of death by dehydration and starvation. Both are barbaric, considered war crimes in a different context. In the case I was personally acquainted with, asphyxiation by rapid flooding of CO2 into the patient's airspace was prohibited.

It's because (correctly, in my view) we value human life more than animal life. Killing an animal in a humane way is not morally wrong; killing a human usually is.

Some of the biggest critics of euthanasia are the disabled.

For example: http://notdeadyet.com

https://dredf.org/assisted_suicide/assistedsuicide.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/disability...

Doh. That meant to be http://notdeadyet.org not .com

There's an unsettling undercurrent of thought in the disabled community: "What if society decides I'm more trouble than I'm worth?" Some of their opposition to legalized euthanasia probably comes from that, and some from religious motivation.

Obviously neither justification is valid as a basis for making laws that apply to us all, but on the other hand, how do you tell them their concerns aren't worth listening to? Some cultures have practiced selective involuntary euthanasia in the recent past, so you can't say "It'll never happen."

The fact that some doctors will readily offer it is also a concern. Without strict oversight to ensure patients aren't unduly affected by medical professionals in their choice is something that bothers me greatly. I'm all for euthanasia but it must be done in a way where the patient is of sound mind and knows there's alternatives to it like assisted living if the condition itself isn't fatal.

I'm a geek, and a paramedic.

I entirely agree - prolonged suffering is not life, it's misery. That decision should belong to people going through this, and not anyone else (they can discuss with those they feel appropriate).

One of the most memorable transports I ever did was for a woman with terminal metastatic cancer, taking her home where her husband had set up a bed in the living room so she could watch the sunrise.

To understand the amount of pain she was in - the movement of the ambulance driving her home about 20 miles exacerbated her pain such that her morphine dose which was already at 450mg/day was pushed to 600mg/day.

For comparison, if you're a 200lb person with a broken bone, you will likely get 15mg.

I have seen the prolonged suffering patients, and their families. Whatever happens, it's not easy.

The only way to win is not to play

It may be hokey but I believe the only way to win is to play excessively ;-)

Yeah, that works too. Not playing is better for global thermonuclear war.

> Euthanasia, to me, seems to be the least worst option if I should ever find myself facing a drawn out exit.

Another option that most people are not aware of (that I personally consider the best way to die), is to simply fast (i.e., no food but with water) for the 30 or so days.

Thought this might not be an option 100% of the time - given the circumstances of the ailment.

This process allows you to meditate on the self, and to let go in a steady way, instead of ending in an abrupt halt.

It has been known to produce a sense of immense relief and oneness with everything.

Writing this as a reply to all the comments regarding death;

I think "death" is just another condition like disease or disability that will eventually be defeated through technology. Someday we will have medical immortality and maybe even mind-backups, to "restore" a person (or a very close approximation of them) in the case of accident/violence.

We should be looking at death as something surpassable and not necessarily grim or morbid.

> I think "death" is just another condition like disease or disability that will eventually be defeated through technology. Someday we will have medical immortality and maybe even mind-backups, to "restore" a person (or a very close approximation of them) in the case of accident/violence.

Backing up your brain does not prevent you to die. Your organic form will die anyway and you will have to go through death, it's just that a copy of you will continue without you. That's not defeating death at all.

It may still be comforting for people to get their loved ones back in some way.

Even without such "resurrection", medical immortality in the form of immunity to aging and disease and disability could be considered as "defeating" nonviolent death.

"It may still be comforting for people to get their loved ones back in some way."

Memories. All you get is memories. To imagine something else is delusional. Losing a loved one hurts like hell but life goes on. Denial is one part of the processs but most of all the difficult part of the process is remolding oneself into a world where the loved one is no more.

The queen of the King of Sweden, Gustaf Adolf could not accept the passing of her husband and in her grief she stored his heart for years in a jar.

While science fiction flirts with various kinds of immortality it offers no assistance forming a philosophy for todays world.

Plus it assumes that our brain software will keep functioning in perpetuity. Given that our bodies come with various forms of death clocks, it seems likely that our brain software would have a death countdown as well, preventing even a backup from working. Unless you don't run it, in which case it's more like freezing a person. It probably has it's uses, but it's very different from immortality.

You make death out to be a problem, which is... unintuitive. What is to gain from "fixing" it?

I wouldn't kick a 500-year lifespan out of my genome, would you?

Yes. Living for 500 years sounds exhausting, pointless, terrible for the environment and my descendants, and a selfish use of resources.

Think of the scientific advancements we might have made had people like Einstein or Fermi or Tesla been able to live another fifty or hundred years, or were still alive.

If we ever manage to find a way off-planet, being able to live for half a millenium (or "forever", or until-I-decide) sounds AMAZING.

It does sound like quite the economic problem, though, and would certainly make earthbound resources more troublesome.

It's one of those things that's great until you realize that as resource constrained people in a capitalist society we will basically poor our scientific advancement into the preservation of the wealthiest. Or birth control: cue the monkey house.

We're not remotely resource-constrained IMO. And the universe doesn't become a zero-sum game for a very very long time, if ever. We are, however, severely imagination constrained IMO and that's more than enough to suck all the fun out of existence at times.

It entirely depends on whether or not the person lives selfishly for those 500 years. If they continue gaining and using experience they could be exceedingly productive.

If they sit around doing nothing but eating and playing video games, that would be a waste.

Productive at what? All of this assumes some grand human plan you can work at. Thus far the vast majority of "productive" humans are "productively" burning through resources with little value: our burn rate is ALREADY crazy with an upper cap on age.

Furthering the cause of the existence of the human species, of course. What other goals are worth pursuing?

Exhausting and pointless are obviously subjective.

As for the environmental issues and being selfish, this doesn't have anything to do with how long you live, but rather with how you live. Obviously, a society with life expectation that is so long would have to reduce the birth rates substantially (or, rather, keep them the same in the births-per-lifetime department). But if you can do that, then there's no reason why it's any more straining on the environment, whether its 1 person living for 500 years, 5 people living for 100 years each, or 10 people living for 50 years each.

You could say it's "selfish" to live one life where there could be ten, but how can one be selfish with respect to non-existing persons? How is it different from someone being "selfish" and not having children, for example? And why wouldn't it apply to ourselves with our current lifespans? Why not, say, euthanize everyone at 30, and use the existing resources to sustain more short-lived people, if the number of people having lived is the metric?

> You could say it's "selfish" to live one life where there could be ten, but how can one be selfish with respect to non-existing persons?

It's more selfishly using the resources younger people can use. If you're eighty, I'd rather feed the eight year old. Until we move beyond resource constraints (lol) this is going to be a major effect of the rich being able to afford long lives AND food and the poor affording neither.

But what makes eighty special? Would you say the same thing about someone who was younger? "If you're forty, I'd rather feed the four year old"? If not, then why not?

The only objective metric I can think of is that today, 80 is usually not an age at which a person can do much. But if we have technology that lets you live much longer, and people at 80 would be physically like, say, 20-year-old today, that goes away.

And, of course, the number of young people "in the pipeline" can be regulated by controlling birth rates.

Without echoing the other responses to your comment, I must add that I think "solving" death is just another technological milestone, just like interstellar travel, required for any intelligent species in this Universe that wishes to make its mark beyond its home planet.

One of the things that are necessary to attain the next level of civilization, or perish. Yes, achieving a post-scarcity industry/economy is also necessary, and goes hand-in-hand with sustainable immortality.

At a certain scale, those that don't have these technologies may be seen as primitive.

I suppose there'll some kinds of biologies where immortality won't be necessary, like a insect-like hive-mind species, where each member is more or less already a copy of each other, but in species that have concepts of individuality and value them, achieving immortality is inevitable.

>>Quite a lot of people fear dying more than they do death.

Hell yes. Kids are grown. Fat life insurance policy. I can accept having a fatal heart attack under the right circumstances :) The slow, painful fade is the thing that scares me. It's better to "burn out, than fade away."

*yet

I am 100% confident that within the next two hundred years (baring some massive war, dark age, etc.) We will be able to use gene therapy to reduce cancer risk to negligible levels. We will probably even master the ability to program cells to do what we want... At which point all diseases where the body breaks down will likely be gone. That's not to say, we won't have issues regarding illness - just our bodies won't break down as quickly if at all.

I agree with you and I hope you are right.

And then overpopulation will become a problem even more than it is now.

No it won't. All first world countries have less than sustainable population growth as it is. We produce vastly more food than we need, and will be able to produce even more in the future with genetically engineered algae. We have vast areas of the Earth left to settle including deserts, antarctica and the Oceans. Not to mention space. We have millennia worth of nuclear fuel available on Earth, not to mention other forms of energy. Overpopulation is a joke.

The way I see it playing out, if working life extension technology is discovered, it will first be hoarded secretly for many years / possibly generations while the rich + powerful use it to stay in power. It won't be generally accessible until much later, likely after the world is in ruins, if at all. Some people believe that it had been discovered before but lost to the ages. Creepy to think about, but makes sense. If someone could live forever, I would think they'd become a huge target for assassination.

That's a stupid theory. All technologies become available to the general public after a short time. Initially cell phones were expensive, but now even the poor often have iphones. Most medicines including advanced cancer treatments are available to everyone. Especially in countries with socialized healthcare. I see no reason why this would be any different.

Making sure everyone has access to life-extension is how you make sure you aren't a target for assassination.

If you try to keep it for yourself you can bet the population-at-large will be gunning for you (literally).

>We produce vastly more food than we need

Global warming could cause some nasty food shortages.

In the next few decades maybe. But population growth is a very long term issue. Over the next few centuries we will almost certainly solve or adapt to whatever issues global warming creates in the next few decades. Slightly decreasing or increasing the population will not make much difference.

> we've evolved into tough bastard but we've not defeated mortality.

Well. We evolved to be a collection of cells. Before, we were unicellular organisms, fighting against other organisms for resources and ultimately, survival.

Some cells just decide to revert back to the old ways. I'd say it's a form of evolution, one that's pruned by natural selection, when the host organism dies.

>I believe/hope that my contribution as a insignificant CS-student helps somebody develop tools that help somebody researching etc.

I somehow ended up in a academic Genetics lab, writing software. We use a lot of languages here (Php, python, perl, java, R, javascript and even some C) and various web frameworks to let people use our tools to do science. I don't know if the creators of these tools imagined they'd be used for science, but they put the tools out there in the public and they were used.

You contribute, because its the right thing todo, that makes you significant. You never know how significant what you put out there will end up being, but it helps you grow too. The open source community inspires and you by contributing are part of that. Every little bit helps.

"Bioinformatics" is a general term of the use of computing in Biology. Its an interesting field.

We don't have a lot of confidence about curing cancer near term (next decade or two). What we are really working on is turning it into a chronic condition, beating back recurrences occasionally with different therapies (and we hope with fewer less bothersome side effects)

Yes. Fuck cancer. Took my grandmother, and took my friend. Took your grandfather. Took your friend. Fuck cancer.

Mother, aunt, grandmother, all died of cancer (brain, breast, metastasis of liver cancer). F*ck cancer indeed. Support marijuana reforms. Best hope we have.

I'm sorry, but what is the connection between those two?

Those two? I'm assuming cancer and marijuana? What we know of several of the cannabinoids is that they participate in apoptosis of the cancerous cells. You get several cell divisions each day in your body that go bad but the cell knows something is wrong and terminates itself with its mitochondria. Cancer happens when apoptosis fails to happen in those circumstances. It's one of the bright hopes of cancer medicine that understanding this process will bring about a general cure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com