I'm a computer scientist working in a Parkinson's lab that is very closely tied to the names in the article. My main duty is data analysis simply because there is so much information to process. If you want some more information regarding state of the art treatments, our website is <a href="http://neurosurgery.ucsf.edu/bankiewicz" rel="nofollow">http://neurosurgery.ucsf.edu/bankiewicz</a> .<p>I also maintain our website, so if you see anything that needs fixing, drop me a line :)
If Sergey Brin thinks the current medical research establishment stifles certain kinds of research avenues, fine. But let's not cast this as him "proposing to bypass centuries of scientific epistemology in favor of a more Googley kind of science". He's not the next Francis Bacon, and this isn't some deep insight into the nature of science.
The world would be a better place if more young billionaires would have incurable diseases.<p>On a serious note, I hope they can find a cure for him and millions of others who can do nothing about their illness other than playing a waiting game.
I'm surprised that he didn't invest more than 0.3% of his net worth (if it really is $15B) into this. It's his choice, but I think that if I was in his position, I'd spend more than that (but yeah, I guess that's easier to say when it's not you).<p>Maybe there are bottlenecks that make it so more money wouldn't speed things up, but I bet there are ways to use resources to help alleviate or remove these bottlenecks.
The article sites the average American's risk of developing Parkinson's at 1%. I really question that. My husband's father died of Parkinson's several years ago, my own father is currently living with Parkinson's, my best friend's father has Parkinson, and so on. Am I the only one surrounded by Parkinson's disease, or is it a growing epidemic? I wonder if that 1% number is an old statistic. I can't find any sources, links?
I think if I had that kind of knowledge of a fucked up disease hanging over my head, I'd put more than .3% of my net worth into the research. I'd want to REALLY move the needle, like alot.
Just take a look at this silly hand wringing editorial about the innovation described in this article<p><a href="http://plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000965" rel="nofollow">http://plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pge...</a><p>When the response to new and cool is "you didn't do it according to protocol", something is definitely wrong.