Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
71d38b07 | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 @8599d6ab thanks, that makes sense if we want to treat at a molecular level. But the worry is that for many disorders with complicated genetics (eg ASD, schizophrenia), or extremely rare genetic conditions, we may not have the knowledge or tools or money needed to make those low-level interventions.

We wrote a review previously arguing that in those cases, degeneracy may open up the chance for higher-level eg circuit treatments

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959438821000787
▲ ▼
Nicole Rust | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 @e298e1ac 
Absolutely! And thanks for the article. 

The parallel pursuit of treatments at higher levels as we chase cures (and treatments) at lower levels should happen, for sure. I recently had a very insightful conversation with an individual who has a rare degenerative disorder. A component of her patient advocacy is spreading the word to researchers that the pursuit of cures should not happen at the expense of pursuing treatments because treatments can vastly improve quality of life (and cures seem to be decades away).

In my mind, there is no singular right approach here. The notion that we (as a community) pursue multiple approaches in parallel (what some like to call "pluralism" and others like to call a "distributed portfolio") is the only thing that makes any sense. We need to play both the short and long game at the same time.

Of course each of us, as individual scientists, needs to make the decision about what we want to pursue ourselves (what we are most optimistic about and interested in, etc).

In my mind, tackling the degeneracy is probably the only route to cures. Whether this happens in my lifetime or not is very much TBD. What we do know is that we definitely won't make any progress if no one works on it.