[jakobnissen]

That doesn't seem right for biology. There's just way too much stuff we don't understand, but which we could understand, because it's there, right in front of us.

Maybe there are some fundamental limits to how much biology we can fix by putting drugs in our bodies, but I also strongly suspect we are nowhere near that limit.

[dsign]

I think we are very close to that limit. I mean, with the right set of drugs applied in the right way during the right timespans and correctly targeted, you can give a person wings and they can take flight. But all of those constraints are very specific to the person and to their current biological condition. The pipeline for drugs today is for the drugs, not for an individual’s peculiarities.

We need a fundamental breakthrough in the way we do medicine (and preventive medicine). Digital twins[^1] of individuals need to become widespread, and today they aren’t even used in research settings, as far as I know. And, to be honest, this is not at all an easy feat. It is, however, something I would love to work on if I had time and resources; humans and even mice are extremely far-fetched, but perhaps hydrozoans can be cracked as a first milestone.

[^1]: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/glossary/digital-twin/

[chrsw]

Making drugs isn't about understanding. It's about educated guesses and lots of trial and error. Biotech funding has no patience for deep understanding.

Most drug research ends up as a money sink because investors lose patience watching scientists play whack-a-molecule.

Some drugs end up making a lot of their money for intended uses that aren't directly related to the initial research. It's easier (and cheaper) to repurpose known drugs for new indications.

Rethinking biology is a terrible pitch but it's probably the only way we will get true breakthroughs that go beyond symptom cover up.