Star Trek Tricorder

Do you remember the Star Trek Tricorders? No not the phasers (always set to stun) but the tricorders that could diagnose people instantly of cancer or all sorts of other ailments. Dr whatshisname had one. I would love it if they were available to diagnose me and skip all the medical misadventures that make our lives so 'fun'. But it is really possible? I don't know at this point.

Google's biotech section, Verily, said that they could develop one in six months. That was three years ago and it still doesn't exist. (Who woulda thunk?)  And based on what has been said by a former employee that if employees said it was a bit 'out there' they were frozen out of future decisions.

"Tricorder is not the only misfire for Google’s ambitious and extravagantly funded biotech venture, now named Verily Life Sciences. It has announced three signature projects meant to transform medicine, and a STAT examination found that all of them are plagued by serious, if not fatal, scientific shortcomings, even as Verily has vigorously promoted their promise.

The Tricorder, as Conrad and others at Verily call the device, is “in the realm of not only science fiction, but beyond that — science fantasy,” said David Walt, a Tufts University chemistry professor and nanoscience expert who met with Verily scientists and engineers last year to share his concerns. “And I’m not sure it will ever be science reality.”"

Science fiction or science reality?

"Verily appears to be having more success with less world-changing projects, but it still chooses to showcase its most ambitious ones — perhaps, some critics suggest, to promote itself as a company poised to defeat disease.

“One needs to balance how much these toys are used mostly for marketing and for giving a sense of a company really working on something impressive — the brave new world — or if we’re talking about something that will have clear and immediate clinical impact,” said Dr. John Ioannidis, a professor of disease prevention at Stanford University. “The latter is very hard to imagine.”"

So if its a marketing splash? What are the ethics of this? If it makes a big splash and helps the company with its stock values, how does that help us patients? It doesn't but just make the company lots of money. 

Star Trek also had all those little communication devices. We have those - our cell phones. But the rest of what was used on the show may be a bit too far in the future.

Ethical dilemma on a cancer drug

I have been mulling this over for a few days. A woman in Texas, Andrea, with stage IV ovarian cancer wants BioMarin to allow her to receive a new drug BMN 673 which has not yet been approved for treatment. Her doctor thinks it  might help her. She hopes it will help her. She understands that it may not help her but it has helped others. There is a big debate going on.

I completely sympathize with her that she wants to try everything possible to stay alive. She and her doctor have been lobbying BioMarin to get the drug. The company is not agreeing , saying it is still in clinical trials and has not yet been proven. They could add her in the clinical trial - but she probably does not meet their criteria. It could help her but it also could mess up their data.

This is a real ethical dilemma and I hope for the best.

What I dislike about this and makes it smack of I'm not sure what. She hired a PR firm who is working for free to publicize her case. Its in the news - national and local here in Boston. She has a change.org petition going. Its all over Facebook.

I just want to say what are you thinking? That you can generate some media hype to change their mind? I was all for this woman but when I found out she has a PR firm creating the hype for her I'm not so sure.