SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-do-you-test-its-effectiveness? dept.
"Biohackers" are growing bolder with their self-experimentation:
Aaron Traywick, 28, who leads biotech firm Ascendance Biomedical, used an experimental herpes treatment that did not go through the typical route of clinical trials to test its safety. Instead of being developed by research scientists in laboratories, it was created by a biohacker named Andreas Stuermer, who "holds a masters degree and is a bioentrepreneur and science lover," according to a conference bio. This is typical of the Ascendance approach. The company believes that FDA regulations for developing treatments are too slow and that having biohackers do the research and experiment on themselves can speed up the process to everyone's benefit. In the past, the company's plans have included trying to reverse menopause, a method that is now actually in clinical trials.
"We prefer to do everything before a live audience so you can hold us accountable in the days to come as we collect the data to prove whether or not this works," Traywick said before last night's spectacle. And, he added, "if we succeed with herpes in even the most minor ways, we can move forward immediately with cancer."
Despite specifying that he wanted "technical questions," someone in the audience asked whether Ascendance had received ethical permission for the experiment. Traywick said he didn't. Technically, everything has been officially labeled "not for human consumption," he said.
Also at The Scientist.
Related: Gene Therapy to Kill Cancer Moves a Step Closer to Market
Biohackers Disregard FDA Warning on DIY Gene Therapy
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday February 07 2018, @07:26PM
Exploratory experiments can actually be quite useful - you're unlikely to learn anything concrete from one such an experiment unless the results are very dramatic, but a large number of diverse experiments can serve to highlight avenues worthy of more in-depth research. Sure, there'll be plenty of false positives and negatives, but it's a huge improvement over blindy jumping directly into investing the resources for a statistically significant experiment size.
It's also quite useful for initial safety studies - you don't have to kill 100 mice to know there's a problem with your serum, you can be reasonably certain after the first one or two keel over after the injection. Especially if dissection reveals your serum as a likely culprit.