Bloody hell, not this nonsense again about @microsoft "solving cancer" within a decade. Seriously, @medscape? 1/https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/905657 …
-
-
And
@microsoft is not alone either. There's@IBM and@IBMWatson making similar claims. How well is that turning out so far? 3/https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ibm-watson-versus-cancer-hype-meets-reality/ …Show this thread -
It reminds me of how often physicists think they've had a major insight that thousands of cancer researchers over the last century have never thought of before, because, you know, they're physicists. 4/https://respectfulinsolence.com/2017/07/18/a-physicist-clueless-about-cancer-lectures-cancer-biologists-on-cancer/ …
Show this thread -
I'm all for interdisciplinary studies to elucidate mechanisms of carcinogenesis and cancer progression that include physics and other basic sciences not normally part of cancer research, but, really, we've got to recognize their limitations. 5/https://youtu.be/_VrFV5r8cs0
Show this thread -
Contrary to how they are portrayed by tech moguls, physicists, and the like, physics and technology are not likely to come up with new insights that lead to cures for cancers unless they are rooted in basic biology. 6/6
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.