传说成都很多人在练~~

我不想做这个扫盲, 我现在情绪不太稳定, "生物什么都没做出来"这种话让我很想打人, 我不明白为什么现在所谓的非生物工作者都可以这样言之凿凿.  算了, 我在adopt中医逻辑了, 我明白, 抽我自己俩大嘴巴, 就这样吧.
RehsuR 发表于 2011-2-16 13:46

算了，我已经被人嘲笑习惯了。。有时候就是要阿Q一下，总是较真钻牛角尖的话，这人活着太累了。。

我承认现在生物医学研究的大部分成果还停留在实验室阶段，很多疾病的机理并不明确或者没有针对性的疗法。不过20年后，情况应该会不一样。在这里替各大biotech开个空头支票吧，20年后，每个人都可以以目前100-500美元的价格对自己的基因组测一次序，测序结果在一个星期之内就可以拿到。。当然测出序列之后，其中有多少序列能有明确的annotation我还不敢保证。。。

这楼歪的。。。

童子功这种东西，相信lz是以娱乐为主的，却变成了中西医大战。。。

中西医各有自己的理论基础，也有自己形成的历史背景。中医比较古老，建立在经验的基础上，以阴阳五行为基础；西医，没记错的 ...
surpass 发表于 2011-2-16 13:52

sorry,目前大部分的预防医学体系都是西医建立的，包括疫苗、诊断试剂盒、相应的生物统计分析等等。中医的所谓“重在预防”其实只是改善健康状况（wellness)，其效果跟化妆品保健品一样，说好听点叫做“见仁见智”。。

另外抗生素滥用导致的抗药性问题并不是西医的错。至少在美国，抗生素的使用是非常谨慎的。反而是中国、印度这种“传统医学”泛滥的地方，对于抗生素的滥用更为严重。

而且中医和西医的一点不同就是，西医一旦出现错误，其原因大多有据可查，为纠正和避免此类错误提供了很好的依据。中医呢？

Google also has this ambitious goal, to allow everyone to search his or her own genetic code in *** years.

I am confident that technology can do it some day.

But I am less confident that lay people can use this information wisely.

The human brain is not really designed to (Okay, the human brain did not evolved to) understand statistics, probabilities, use evidence based methods in assessing every day situations.

Even having a job title as statistician can not rid the practitioner of his or her own emotion or bias when it comes time to make a decision.

Huge quantities of data, complex computations, availability of new info etc are all relatively recent phenomena.
What they can do for us is largely unknown.

And for humans selective breeding is not actively practiced, so it's unlikely we will continue to evolve to the point that new generations will grow more and more capable of understanding "stats" right out of the womb.

I digress....

sorry,目前大部分的预防医学体系都是西医建立的，包括疫苗、诊断试剂盒、相应的生物统计分析等等。中医的所谓“重在预防”其实只是改善健康状况（wellness)，其效果跟化妆品保健品一样，说好听点叫做“见仁见智” ...
kanedetiber 发表于 2011-2-17 06:59

blissful ignorance.

Though I agree with you that evidence based medicine is objectively "better" precisely due to measured evidence, I am less sure that people's subjective feeling of wellness can be accurately measured this way.

Tons of behavioral studies have shown that people's opinions can be swayed by tons of seemingly insignificant/irrelevant factors. With a fancier bottle and steeper price tag, the same wine will now taste better. With a familiar "Xmas red" coke can, the "coke" will taste better than the chemically identical control. With a different name, two otherwise indistinguishable pink nail polish colors will give people entirely different perceptions of color, passionate vs. elegant, for example.

Granted in these examples there are no life and death situations, but hey, it's up to them...

I am not arguing for forgoing "evidence based medicine" for blissful ignorance though. I am just saying, if a placebo really can make people feel less pain, then give them the placebo.....

Google also has this ambitious goal, to allow everyone to search his or her own genetic code in *** years.

I am confident that technology can do it some day.

But I am less confident that lay p ...
小K 发表于 2011-2-17 07:01

insightful...

其实现在所谓的next-generation sequencing已经很成熟了，而且有几种不同的技术手段，成本也在不断降低（貌似在中国的价格更低，因为well-trained technician价格低得离谱）。问题是：1，如何处理化学反应产生的海量data，这个google应该比较有优势；2，测序完了之后，如何annotate基因组，每段序列都是干什么用的，现在还没有完整的答案；3，易知每个人的基因序列组成和后天epigenetic modification肯定是不同的，序列的普遍性及个人的特异性到底对群体和个体的健康有什么影响，这个要靠bioinfomatics和statistics，不过目前做出来的模型少有能经得起实验验证的；4，这个和前面的也有点关联，毕竟每个基因的表达都是受到调控的，如何调控基因表达，这是个更复杂的问题。

而且做生物医学一个麻烦的问题是，研究者的研究对象是人，但是却没办法拿人做各种交配和实验。。我有时候就会有很邪恶的想法，如果731部队存在到今天，很多生物医学问题就很容易解答了。。

至于为什么会有NIH, HHMI, March of Dimes等等机构以及为什么丫都这么有钱，我想到的解释是，相比宇宙起源之类的蛋疼哲学问题，有钱人更关心自己的健康问题，所以各种公众和私人的投资有很多都流向了healthcare，那么生物医学研究自然会分一杯羹。。

I am just saying, if a placebo really can make people feel less pain, then give them the placebo.....
小K 发表于 2011-2-17 07:11

好吧，要让人接受这种观点，就要承认人类的本性中有SB的一面，这会让一些人无法接受啊。。

不过这也许是中医在当今仍然能存在的原因？其本质和化妆品保健品是一样的，只是让人感觉更好一些。。

en 作为statistician 天天给lay people 解释statistics，我体会的一个问题是，even if all things can be very accurately measured, annotated and via a complex formula ，都归结成一个简单的概率了，人们还是无法正确理解之。

比如说，woman A, with your DNA like this, and your life style like this, plus any and all other variables, we estimate the probability of you developing breast cancer by the age 45 to be 75% percent.

What exactly does this mean? It means for a large number of women, say 1000, all with exactly the same DNA make up, same life style and same on almost all other dimensions, roughly 750 of them will go on to have breast cancer by age 45.

But for woman A, this 75% doesn't say for sure whether or not she will have breast cancer by 45.

Very commonly upon hearing this, someone will go on to *enlighten* me "but a probability is meaningless. Either you will have it or you won't. The probability is either 1 or 0."

it's still not easy for people to understand the difference between characteristic of a random variable (it's probability distribution) and one realization of it.

And that is in fact the truth about evidence based medicine, it doesn't tell you whether or not you will be cured by this particular drug, only that a certain percentage of people who take the drug will be cured.

Then there's the problem of choice and decision, after understanding the hard facts.

Say a couple finds out their unborn child has "90% chance" of having this rare and terrible genetic disease, should they choose to terminate the pregnancy?
If their new born is alive and suffers from brain damage and very unlikely to recover from it, should they remove the ventilator and let the baby die?
People instinctively believe in the benefit of having the freedom to choose, but some studies have shown that in certain situations more choice does not necessarily lead to more happiness or more confidence/satisfaction about their choice.

And there's the further problem of "bandwidth". How much time /energy should we spend on understanding the facts enough to make sound judgments?Is the time/energy expenditure justified by the benefits we stand to reap from making "slightly better judgments"? Or are we overwhelmed by the sea of information, the fear of inability to understand, the anxiety about drawing the right conclusion from our understanding, or the guilt about not understanding them....

We can call for aid from these rational computing machines. But we are not such machines. We are subject to fallacies, emotions, biases, and all those recently popular terms. Maximizing self perceived happiness on a moment to moment basis is a rather different task from making the best scientific data-based judgments.....

童鞋您很闲吗？不闲就该干嘛干嘛去。装哑巴又死不了人。


- 發送自我的 iPhone 大板凳應用
RehsuR 发表于 2011-2-16 12:17

跪主板，跪主板，哈哈哈

哈哈哈哈哈...方法多多哦~跪键盘岂不是太便宜那小子了~
RehsuR 发表于 2011-2-16 15:53

求教你准备用什么，打听来了告诉我家领导以后对付我……

好吧，要让人接受这种观点，就要承认人类的本性中有SB的一面，这会让一些人无法接受啊。。

不过这也许是中医在当今仍然能存在的原因？其本质和化妆品保健品是一样的，只是让人感觉更好一些。。
kanedetiber 发表于 2011-2-17 07:26

我是觉得不用强求啊。
另外我悲观的认为人性里面SB才是主要方面吧