197 scientists told this boy no. Why? Because we are a culture where innovation has been almost totally corporatized. Ideas like this effective and ridiculously cheap test for pancreatic cancer die on the vine, and for what reason? Because a 15-year-old thought of it? Because an outsider to the scientific "club" thought of it? Because the solution is inexpensive to the consumer? At 15 years of age, this boy still has his idealism; it has not been beaten out of him and forged into a defeatist attitude or life long apathy. I hope it never will.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/27/jack-andraka
#innovation #inspiration #curecancer #corporatization 
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
I read about this a few weeks ago and was totally blown away by this smart kid.
Nopes, it's because scientists after putting a decade or more of their time into their degrees and research, do not like to think that out of the 7 billion people on the planet, every now and then one kid may actually come up with a brilliant idea. You have to realize tons of idiots come up with non-sensical ideas every day, and eventually it's like crying wolf so when a real good idea comes along it's often overlooked. It's not the culture, it's experience that tells the scientists not to pay attention to a 15 year-old's idea. The kid just got lucky someone did pay attention to him. Note, the scientists are still pumping loads of awesome research every day on other things…don't forget that.
Big smile. TY a million.
Actually if you look at my reshare of it earlier, some scientists are weighing on why it's interesting but more problematic than the article implies: https://plus.google.com/u/0/108316670838828910396/posts/RS6F1R8RXUS
Don't fall prey to the misinformed hysteria that big pharma is apparently willing to let folks die in lieu of an inexpensive treatment. It's simply not the case, and in fact the article itself lists two corporations already vying for this if it proves to be a useful test.
Big pharma is about profit, that much is true, and there's a lot wrong with that, but they don't squash proven technologies…they monetize them. There's a very legitimate debate to be had as to whether or not they should be able to monetize as much as they do, but not on whether or not they'd grab any opportunity to sell a proven test/treatment if they could.
Any company that can change their tagline to "We Cure Cancer" will rake in cash, so nobody buries that possibility. Conversely, anyone who says that without evidence is a scam artist.
"Value is not a matter of years." Corneille (french playwright)
Good comments from all, thank you. +Ramsez Stamper and +Kimberly Chapman I agree with most of what you wrote. I do however still believe we, as a culture, have built more institutions that stifle ideas as opposed to fostering them. This is more an era of intellectual property rights and trading in patents than allowing innovation to build on itself.
To me, this article casts more doubt over what we think we actually know, given the weight huge conglomerates carry with their cash, than being in the right place at the right time..
Just how much marketing substitutes truth?
Good on this kid for getting his chance. Let's hope it proves to be the dog's bollocks at saving, well…y'know?
We all know businesses have to turn profit, but many margins in the pharmaceutical are scandalous. What price on life?
Sadly, too high for too many. With inexpensive treatments like this, let's hope those showing an interest do not take the piss if they adopt it.