I think you did a great job of trying to relating this topic to the programming mentality here. Many of the comments here seem to focus on how technology should not be purchased expensively or how this or that is not worth the extra money.
The author does not set in stone that you must go for the more expensive item. He does qualify that some things, such as phones, are disposable and should not be approached with the "buy expensive" mentality.
I find the lack of accessibility to the poor for such treatment troubling. Dr. Wartman was lucky enough to work in a cancer research lab that covered the costs of the genome and RNA sequencing AND he had rich doctor friends who helped chip in to buy enough drug for him.
While the costs of sequencing are dropping quickly, medical drugs don't fall in price at the same rate. And there's always the chance that a drug to cure that particular mutation doesn't exist. What then? Spend millions on years of research to make the drug?
And there's always the chance that a drug to cure that particular mutation doesn't exist. What then? Spend millions on years of research to make the drug?
This is indeed the case for most mutations that we're finding in cancer genomes. (That's the bad news).
The good news is that many cancers do have "druggable" genes that are altered, and even though the cells have many mutations, attacking just the druggable gene is often enough to prolong life and improve outcomes.
The other good news is that even though many different genes can be mutated, there are a much smaller number of pathways that are altered. (those for cell cycle control, apoptosis, etc). By targeting key points in those pathways, one drug may be effective against dozens of different mutations.
I meant a sympathetic view towards dingleberry was partly due to a dislike of America( government, corporations, certain people) and not because they think he is a swell chap.
