Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Supercomputing Medicine Science Technology

Computing a Cure For HIV 89

Posted by Soulskill
from the petaflops-for-science dept.
aarondubrow writes: The tendency of HIV to mutate and resist drugs has made it particularly difficult to eradicate. But in the last decade scientists have begun using a new weapon in the fight against HIV: supercomputers. Using some of the nation's most powerful supercomputers, teams of researchers are pushing the limits of what we know about HIV and how we can treat it. The Huffington Post describes how supercomputers are helping scientists understand and treat the disease.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Computing a Cure For HIV

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Bitcoin mining? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21, 2014 @01:07PM (#47289261)

    It isn't lack of computing power that is holding back most theoretical biophysics research.. it's the lack of people who have the rare combination of skills of a programmer, mathematician, chemist, biologist and drug engineer coming up with novel and unique ideas to combat disease who will sacrifice industry paychecks to work in academic fields.

  • Re:Bitcoin mining? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gnupun (752725) on Saturday June 21, 2014 @01:54PM (#47289433)

    Why do researchers have to sacrifice an industry paycheck to do it? In other words, why won't industrial pharma hire more talented scientists. They seem instead to be more interested in hiring salespeople, lawyers and MBAs...

    Perhaps, it has something to do with the high failure rate of such research. Would you pay a salary to 1000 employees, of which only one employee gives you solid results and the remaining fail? That's not very business friendly. This type of research is more feasible under govt. grants.

  • Re:Bitcoin mining? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bmo (77928) on Saturday June 21, 2014 @02:56PM (#47289655)

    Perhaps, it has something to do with the high failure rate of such research. Would you pay a salary to 1000 employees, of which only one employee gives you solid results and the remaining fail?

    >implying that this is bad

    Typical bean-counter/MBA attitude.

    That's not very business friendly.

    Companies like HP, Xerox, etc, built empires on that kind of research.

    They declined when they spun off or closed their research divisions because management failed to see the value/use the output of the research labs. The HP example is particularly striking - they went from an advanced technology company to a schlock printer seller, one that is sneered at and loathed, in a handful of years. Xerox is also striking in that PARC laid the foundation for a lot of modern computing but management only saw money to be made in copiers and filing paper and thusly ignored most of PARC's output, ceding the computer revolution to other companies.

    It is also part of a larger problem. Because of the emphasis on short-term profits (quarters are too long!) at the expense of everything else, we in the West are so enthusiastic at shoving all our production to the Chinese and others saying "We can't be arsed to get our hands dirty; we want to just do the high-level stuff like design and company management" totally ignoring the fact where the production goes, so does the engineering development, science research, and eventually even upper-management. This was learned by Samuel Slater, Francis Cabot Lowell, and others who founded the "silicon valley" (Blackstone Valley) of the Industrial Revolution. A lesson forgotten through complacency, greed, and snobbery.

    Alexander Graham Bell is shouting at you from his grave calling you a moron.

    --
    BMO

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Working...