Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 May 2000 15:44:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
578 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:
> We have had over fifty years of cancer research and the overall rate has not
> decreased. After a few years of intense research against the polio virus,
> it's rate of infection was almost down to nothing... Seems like the logical
> choice to me is to fight a battle that we may have the ability of winning in
> the short term.
This is a good point that hasn't been discussed much here. The likelihood of
progress should go into the cost-benefit analysis. OTOH, if the techniques
developped for Polio worked for HIV, it'd be under control by now, right?
Since that's not the case, I have to assume that the analogy isn't perfect.
How can we predict the success of research endevours?
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Ok, the virus does mutate. the mutation rate for the genes that code for the protein coat is about 15%/8 years. Compare this to the divergence rate in almost any gene between a person and a chimpanzee which is about 2%/several million years. (...) (25 years ago, 9-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
