Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine

Sean Parker Announces $250 Million Grant To Fight Cancer (cnn.com) 29

Robert Mclean, reporting for CNN: Silicon Valley billionaire Sean Parker announced a $250 million grant on Wednesday to establish the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, which aims to increase collaboration among researchers and accelerate the development of immune therapies. Immunotherapy uses the body's own immune system to help fight cancer, and is considered one of the most promising areas of emerging cancer research. More than 40 laboratories and more than 300 researchers and immunologists will participate in the project, including six top cancer centers: Memorial Sloan Kettering, University of Pennsylvania, University of Texas, Stanford, UCLA and UCSF. The Institute said that under the program, intellectual property licensing, data collection and clinical trials across multiple centers will be unified for the first time. The administration of all intellectual property will be shared across teams.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sean Parker Announces $250 Million Grant To Fight Cancer

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    250 million??? Dr Evil is impressed.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      $250 Million is nothing. We've already spent 100 times that amount and have little to show for it.

      In the early 1990s i read an article which claimed that cancer research was mostly a scam. Not so much a deliberate scam but people were allegedly being overly conservative and not pursuing every possible avenue, because if you're actually successful then all those billions for research go away. At the time, I dismissed the article as just conspiracy theory crackpottery, (much like the claims of automobile

      • While there are plenty of "foundations" that collect a lot of money that doesn't go to research or doing fuck all other than allowing the CEO to enrich themselves and friends, cancer research (as in scientists developing and testing methods of preventing or eliminating cancer) is pretty legitimate. It's a difficult problem to solve, but we're slowly getting there and even when we fail, we're still learning new things that might have other applications.

        I also don't think the medical professionals research
      • by arth1 ( 260657 )

        $250 Million is nothing. We've already spent 100 times that amount and have little to show for it.

        Yes, 250 million is a drop in the ocean.

        Instead of spending all the money on prolonging life and suffering, how about accepting death and spending money on improving life?

      • A lot of cancer charities are scams, but the research is, definitively, not.

        Part of the problem with cancer research is that we keep finding ways in which cancers we thought were the same are, in fact, different and need to be treated differently (sometimes). Immunotherapy, however, has already had some really big successes. Carl June's group has gotten success rates of 90%+ with some leukemias and lymphomas. The main reason we're seeing more and more people get/die from cancer is that cancer is sort of i
  • Silicon Valley billionaire [and Napster founder] Sean Parker... establish[ed] the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy,...under the program, intellectual property licensing... will be unified for the first time. The administration of all intellectual property will be shared across teams.

    "Napsterman To Copyright Cure For Cancer", huh? If they succeed, karma dictates that pretty soon everyone will hoarding two full lifetimes worth of Parker Institutes cancer cures, even for cancers that they don't have and have no particular need to cure.

    • please, don't believe anything published in the NYT. Nothing is settled when it comes to cancer except you can get it and in most cases it'll eventually kill you.

  • by KermodeBear ( 738243 ) on Wednesday April 13, 2016 @12:06PM (#51900983) Homepage

    Why do people always start their own foundation? It's a duplication of effort. You need to hire people to run things, need to do all the legal stuff, etc., etc. Why not take that money and give it to an existing organization? The pride of having YOUR NAME on the effort?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Two primary reasons:

      • The overwhelming majority of not for profit organizations are just tax avoidance scams for trust fund babies.
      • If you are going to spend millions of dollars on something you probably want to see it work and properly assume all the other organizations attempting to do the same thing are incompetent, corrupt or both. Sometimes people simply like to run things themselves, especially if they have the personality type that allowed them to accrue such a large sum to begin with.

      The second reaso

    • by arth1 ( 260657 )

      any quite sophisticated backup and recovery mechanism that compensates for file system or file corruption.

      Known since the days of Tacitus, the law of bureaucracy means that the larger an organization grows, the larger the ratio of administrative positions to workers, because the administrative positions also need administrative support. Small companies will have less overhead than big ones.

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      Dude, don't you know that startups and can do anything? If you restate a problem into a startup, you'll have at least a working prototype in a few months.

      There's probably some merit to the idea in some ways if you filter out some of the ego and myopia. The older an organization is, the more likely it may be hanging onto old ideas or ways of thinking that can be counter-productive. And the larger an organization is, the more slowly it changes.

  • South Park reference: "And... it's gone..."

  • there are more than 200 cancer treatment centers in the US alone, not counting the inumerable rise of "alternative" treatment centers that forego the scientific method in favour of wreckless naturalism and holistics. Do we need yet another branded expression of a rich mans ego masquerading as anything more than fleeting concern for a personal interest in a likely singular event of cancer? very little attention is paid to the environmental factors --equally inumerable-- that act as either cancer suspect agents or outright carcinogens themselves. Strides have been made in ablating BPA and Lead from our food chain, but more can and should be done to reign in things like Acrylamide and the carte blanc appropriation of nearly every organic and inorganic chemistry development to the amorphous Generally-Regarded-As-Safe (GRAS) monicker so often championed by chemical companies. 250 million dollars applied to strengthening the EPA, the FDA, and legislation designed to protect consumers would do arguably much more to prevent cancer. Reforming the harbingers of the largest cause of preventable disease in the world --major multinational fast and processed food conglomerates-- would surely act more immediately than a pet research institute.
  • The Institute said that under the program, intellectual property licensing, data collection and clinical trials across multiple centers will be unified for the first time.

    So what? That does nothing to make it useful, it just makes it less useful cause you'll now have 6 groups competing to learn and gain from the shared research all while hiding the bits of research and data they think they can patent and make profitable.

    If you want to actually cure cancer, make ALL THE RESEARCH ENTIRELY OPEN WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED.

    THEN come talk to me about actually wanting to cure cancer and do it with collaboration and do it for the good of humanity.

    This is just another advertising gimm

    • If they do find successful therapies, they'll be worth a fortune. This smells more like an investment (granted, a risky one) than a "donation".
  • after decades of research and billions of dollars spend, I don't believe cancer will be cured, not because it is difficult, but because the farmaceutical industry doesn't want to, it's much more profitable to treat the disease than to actually cure it.. At the moment it looks to me that a lot of people seem to get/have cancer, but as I said I don't see a real future in were we will see it actually cured (even though we already do have the knowledge and technology to actually do it)..

  • Of course, the National Cancer Inst, part of the US's National Institutes of Health, has an *annual* budget just for itself of $4.9 *billion*. And a good bit goes to researchers around the US, such as colleges.

                          mark

"A child is a person who can't understand why someone would give away a perfectly good kitten." -- Doug Larson

Working...