Hacker News Reader

Comment by ldoughty | Hacker News Reader

To summarize --

They found a correlation between a protein (ENPP1) and breast cancer metastasis that they feel is a very strong signaler for pembrolizumab immunotherapy resistance. This would be helpful information to help get to the right dosage of medicine faster (or skip a class of drugs entirely), which might save weeks or months of taking a drug that effectively is neutralized by the resistance.

Additionally, hopefully new medicine will (after more research) go after this protein and see if attacking it allows the immune system to better resist cancer itself.

It's also worth noting that two of the researchers involved in this work own a company to try to utilize patents around this work.

View on HN

> It's also worth noting that two of the researchers involved in this work own a company to try to utilize patents around this work.

Is the implication that there is bias, or are you implying there is reason to be hopeful that it makes it to market quickly?

Why not both?

I was stating a fact presented at the end of the article. The interpretation of that fact is up to the reader.

You said it was worth noting, which is more than just stating a fact.

Facts can be seen as important without implying any specific interpretation of them.

I consider the speed of light being 299,792 km per second as worth remembering even if I have no specific use in mind.

Oh great, you’re piling onto the obtuse pile

>Facts can be seen as important without implying any specific interpretation of them.

This isn't even true. In the example you gave, you clearly remember the speed of light because you think it may be useful someday.

When someone believes a fact is important or "worth noting", they used some reasoning to arrive at that conclusion. Whether or not that reasoning is flimsy is another matter.

As an uninvolved bystander I can agree that the reason it is noteworthy can be separated from the fact of whether or not it is.

In this case I think there are a few reasons of note which were already alluded to, but I don't personally think it need call any questions about the validity of the experiments and the other reasons being around the potential future value of associated company, any opinions of which are for the individual and their financial advisors to consider.

I wasn't aware of the fact there was already a company created for it but it does say something about the confidence these researchers have placed in the results, even if that may not be noteworthy, per se, regarding the results.

Right. And additionally, it provides at least a trace of possibility that there's some sort of a vested interest in the outcome of the research, although it shouldn't necessarily be held against them that they believe in their work and want to see applications from it.

I don’t think knowing c is going to particularly impact most people.

On one level it’s essentially random trivia you can easily lookup, but on another level it’s fundamental in a way that few things are. Individual mutations from random events wildly shaped human history making most facts people remember essentially happenstance. However, c is more closely tied to the underlying aspects of reality.

>This isn't even true

Of course it is. This is one of those 'only on HN' moments. You absolutely can be cognizant that a fact may give rise to any number of competing interpretations, and you can understand those interpretations to be significant if true, while not endorsing them.

>When someone believes a fact is important or "worth noting", they used some reasoning to arrive at that conclusion

Again, you can understand that a fact gives rise to certain interpretations without endorsing those interpretations, and this could nevertheless be enough of a reason to merit sharing the fact.

So I think there may be some equivocation of the term "interpretation" in this thread--whether intentional or not--but I understand the point being made here.

My point is that when one determines that a fact is notable, there is an underlying reason for making that determination, whether it involves several "competing interpretations" or not. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for that underlying reason so I can assess the validity of the statement. If someone refuses to give it, as we've seen here, then its reasonable to dismiss their assertion. I'm not responsible for justifying their own argument for them.

As for the 'only on HN' remark, I think that was unnecessary. At any rate, this will be my last comment on the subject.

> which is more than just stating a fact

Didn't seem like it to me (personally speaking).

I let other people chime in, but to provide an answer myself:

I felt that it was worth noting because, depending on the viewpoint of the reader, that information could be seen as a positive or a negative, and could have an impact on their viewpoint.

1. The existence of the company suggests that there might be a meaningful or profitable future from what has already been learned.. commercialization of this information might be more readily possible.

2. Someone who's cynical might question the validity of the research and/or the motives of people involved.

I certainly have my own opinion, but I also have not deeply researched this subject, or the researchers involved. I was curious to get some high level information on this topic so I read the article. I felt it was hard to skim through so, after reading it, I wanted to provide the high level summary as I understood it for others here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com