Index  | Recent Threads  | Unanswered Threads  | Who's Active  | Guidelines  | Search
 

Quick Go ยป
No member browsing this thread
Thread Status: Active
Total posts in this thread: 104
Posts: 104   Pages: 11   [ Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Next Page ]
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 24274 times and has 103 replies Next Thread
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Is this a Non-Profit organization ??

I wait until we get an official statement.

As great as the future results of this project can be, as bad they will be if misused.
[Nov 21, 2004 3:24:03 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Is this a Non-Profit organization ??

Even posted before, I would like to repeat this quote from the 'Project Archives':

"In the first 72 hours, 100,000 results were returned. Overall, the project identified 44 strong treatment candidates, which were handed to the U.S. Department of Defense for further evaluation."

I would like to hear an official statemant, if this will happen in the future too.
You'll understand that I'm not really interested in crunching for the U.S. Department of Defense.... wink

Willi, Berlin
[Nov 21, 2004 10:50:09 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
shock Re: Is this a Non-Profit organization ??

Crap! Sorry for the strong word, but this is really too sad !

Ok guys, I'm now already half way convinced that this is not ok ! I wait another 3 days for an official statement and afterwards I will warn my relatives & friends, who already have started to participate.

It seems as if this wolf has eaten chalk and is wearing a nice humanitarian website, while his stomach already craves for fodder.

Thanks Willi for your info !

Very sad ! sad

(This post has been edited for profanity - nelsoc)
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Jun 21, 2005 11:39:30 AM]
[Nov 21, 2004 1:41:39 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Is this a Non-Profit organization ??

"In the first 72 hours, 100,000 results were returned. Overall, the project identified 44 strong treatment candidates, which were handed to the U.S. Department of Defense for further evaluation."

Yeah, but the Smallpox project wasn't done with the World Community Grid. If you read the next paragraph it says that because of the success of the Smallpox project WCG was *then* created to go further with that kind of research. Which, to me, suggests that theWCG had nothing to do with that particular project and it's only the software from UnitedDevices that was the same.

I'm not sure, but I assume the Departement of Defense was one of the groups supporting that project, since smallpox can easily be used as a biological weapon and they would be very interested in a cure.

As for making it easier for drug companies to patent new cures: Who else is going to? It will always be drug companies, but what we're doing is giving all of them all over the world an even base to work with. They can all go from the results here and do with that what they wish. I don't particularly like the way the patent system works in the medical field, but whether or not we do this, medication will always be patented and sold to higher prices than they are worth - but even though the WCG is doing good because when they don't have to do all the research with their own machines, drug companies will have lower prices and it'll still be available much sooner, also, the competition to get to the cure will be more equal and there's a good chance that more than one possibility for cures is discovered.

It's the nature of scientific research. There's nothing we can do to stop the corporations from making money, but the grid will inevitably help people. It's more than worth a few compromises. I mean, if there's even the slightest chance that this will help others find the cures the world needs, then I'm not stopping.

Of course, that's just my own opinion and is not meant to offend anyone. It's perfectly understandable to be sceptic, especially in today's world.
[Nov 21, 2004 2:25:21 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Is this a Non-Profit organization ??

I really, really wish that IBM could get their act together and actually publish a more effective rebuttal explaining why most of the complaints on here are factually wrong (or at least misleading) and that some of the other problems are simply inherent in scientific research in general. In general it's quite a good thing to be at least a bit cynical about anything done by large corporations - but I am uncomfortable with the propagation of innuendo, rumours and half-researched myths about a project that ultimately has the potential to save lives (maybe even your own life?). If you have a criticism or query about this project my advice is either (i) flag up the problem (rather than making a bold accusation!) and ask whether it is true, hoping for an official reply or (ii) research it yourself, find out as much as you can, and then consider the question of posting again. It's IBM fault that they haven't explained themselves properly, but I fear that a lot of people in here, whether it's through prejudice, ignorance or fact-researching laziness, or just because they have been misinformed, have done much unnecessary damage to a project that is inherently worthwhile. To make a few more things clear that IBM ought to have done but hasn't:

* THE SMALLPOX GRID WAS NOT PART A WCG SCHEME. ALL PARTICIPANTS KNEW THAT THE RESULTS WERE TO BE GIVEN TO THE US DoD. On the latter point, consult http://www-1.ibm.com/grid/announce_205.shtml. Patriotic Americans may well have thought it a good thing to donate spare computer time to their government's attempt to protect them from any eventuality of a terrorist bio-weapon attack. I'm British. I might not have stood to gain anything from that project, but as far as I can see, good for them! This is a case of people - end users as well as members of the US government and IBM - who think that they would generally prefer it and be quite a bit happier in life if they didn't die of a horrible disease in a terrorist outrage. I don't see how this makes them "wolves" with a craving for blood in their stomach! It didn't claim to be a project that helped everybody. The WCG is the next step up: a genuinely philanthropic exercise that puts the numbers you've crunched into the global public domain, not just the US government.

* THE INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY IS A NON-PROFIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE. To quote from their website (http://www.systemsbiology.org/Default.aspx?pagename=aboutus ): "The Institute for Systems Biology (ISB) is an internationally renowned non-profit research institute dedicated to the study and application of systems biology. ISB's goal is to unravel the mysteries of human biology to identify strategies for predicting and preventing diseases such as cancer, arthritis and AIDS." Just as Folding@Home emphasises that Stanford publishes its results in renowned public domain journals (http://folding.stanford.edu/papers.html ), the ISB publishes in the same way (see http://www.systemsbiology.org/Default.aspx?pagename=publications - and PLEASE NOTE how many of their publications have major implications for medical cures!). Obviously they haven't published about the WCG project yet but that's because they haven't got the results in... they are committed to open publication, which is why IBM and the WCG chose them for the project!

* FOLDING@HOME IS A WORTHY PROJECT. BUT THERE REALLY ISN'T A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SET-UP OF F@H AND THE WCG. Basically F@H is a bit more limited in that it is a one-off exercise directly run by the research institution. WCG is a long term, multiple-project exercise that selects which institutions are involved. Here is an outline of their general organisations:

F@H: Project and grid run by Stanford -> You crunch their numbers -> Stanford compile and analyse the results -> Stanford's analysis goes into the public domain

WCG: Grid run by IBM -> Research institutions apply with their projects -> Selection of research projects (criteria include being non-profit, making the results publicly available and preferably having particular use in poorer countries) -> Choice of project available to you (although this is a new scheme and so far there is only one project available) -> You crunch the numbers for your chosen project -> Research institution compiles and analyses the results -> End research released by that institution into the public domain (this is a criterion for the project's accession to the WCG)

If the WCG is misused in the future, then at least you might have the option to switch to a more philanthropic project on it. If not, then screw 'em and leave. But there is no evidence that this misuse is currently occurring! There are safeguards against this misuse, as well: check out their advisory board, who select the projects (http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread_thread,27722). Look at their credentials - academia (Oxford University, Caltech), health concerns (Mayo Clinic, the World Health Organisation) and charitable bodies (the world-renowned MacArthur Foundation, for example) are all represented. My biggest criticism is that there is a particularly high weighting of US and to a lesser extent European bodies, although there are some counterweights (e.g. the WHO). On the other hand, if you check out the global statistics you can see that this is mainly an American, and to a lesser extent European, grid. The important thing is that these guys apply the rules properly, and if looks like they are cheating (e.g. testing candidates for a drug, with the results to go to a research body affiliated to a famous "Big Pharma" company, who will publish the results but only after getting first sniff at any resulting patenting opportunities) then quit that project, maybe even the WCG, and make a *big noise* about it. The blow to IBM's reputation would be expensive - literally millions of dollars of goodwill - and they probably wouldn't dare to do it again. But why all this fuss about hypotheticals when there is currently no evidence of misuse?

* THE IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS GOING INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN: This means everybody. Public health laboratories, university research programs, pharmaceutical companies and the US Department of Defence (even if you're German... or, on the flip side, the Bundeswehr even if you're American!). More starkly, it may even mean that if there is a hostile application of a bio-chemical discovery found on this site, that it will be utilised by a terrorist group's R&D cell that would like nothing more than to slaughter you and to brainwash your children. Of course, the same could be said for the release into the public domain of any biochemical research, whether produced by a university, non-profit research institute or a government laboratory. To be honest I am actually glad that the smallpox grid data was only released to the US DoD! If a terrorist group or rogue state could have used that data to try and devise a way to beat the cure, then it would have not only rendered the project pointless (it would have been better for the DoD to do it slower, by themselves, and secretly) but actually made the world more dangerous. But in general scientific research is a good thing! If the USA had banned scientific and technological research as of 1900, then the world might have been spared Hiroshima and the threat of nuclear destruction, but even as an Englishman, not in the USA at all, I might well have died of some now-curable disease - and had I survived (with all respect and love to my Teutonic EU brothers rose ) I would probably be speaking German! As for the idea that drugs companies should pay for any research that might eventually help them in the search for a cure (i.e. almost all the world's biology, bioengineering and biochemistry research and fair swathes of its nanotechnology, environmental, informatics and materials science research) - wouldn't this mean less research and fewer (and far more expensive!) drugs? I am genuinely uneasy with the medical patenting system. But the proposition that drugs companies must not use the research produced by this site in the search for a cure is disturbing. Firstly, it has as a definition of public domain: "this scientific knowledge is available for everybody, so long as you can neither think of a use for it from which you might profit, nor perform follow-up research that might have a use from which you might profit". This is not the analogy to open-source software or collaborative artwork, it's more like a collaboratively written and freely available book called "An Introduction to Computers and Computer Programming" that is only freely available if you agree not to use the knowledge from it to help you to become (possibly after many years and a lot of expensive training) a person who makes money from computer programming. Presumably you're only allowed to do it if you're interested in computers per se, or want to become a freeware programmer. Secondly, what are drug companies meant to do? Divert limited resources away from other potentially life-saving research (your life, perhaps, or mine?) so that they can hire some supercomputers and perform precisely the same number-crunching as the WCG did, and then they have a right to use that data in subsequent research on the grounds that it is now their data too (and not just "the grid's data")?? Precisely the same criticism would apply to Folding@Home's policy of publishing their results as to the WCG's, so switching over is surely not a solution.

The solution is to either accept that people might profit from scientific research to which you have contributed, or start up you own grid that rather than publishing publicly only gives the information to an institution that you trust to use that data to provide a cheap and widely available cure. In fact, the best example of the latter is the now-defunct smallpox grid - its American users trusted that US government wouldn't charge its own citizens to be cured in the event of a smallpox attack. The problem with the protein folding projects (both the current WCG one and F@H) is that they have overplayed the fact that the research will eventually be used to cure disease. Unlike the smallpox grid, a direct hunt for a cure, what they are pursuing is general scientific knowledge in a field which will later have major health applications. This is important research from which the human race will ultimately benefit, but not just yet. Because the hypothetical "good guy grid" would have to be incredibly secretive about its results until its cheap and widely available cure became available, it would be an inappropriate project for such a grid - and an inappropriate grid for that project.

My two cents are quite long, I'm afraid! Sorry! Anyway, in summary:

TO IBM AND THE WCG: Please please please sort out some sort of unified, cohesive, easily-found official rebuttal. And soon! For the first time in ages, a major US corporation is publicly doing something not only demonstrably good, but which will actually benefit large swathes of humanity. And you're taking it on (providing major technical assistance) at cost to yourself, without charging your partners like the ISB. Then you go and blow it all with your useless PR! The result seems to be people looking at you, and not contributing to a good thing because all their prejudice lets them see is "IBM=money eyes"

TO PEOPLE WAITING FOR AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT: Please try to be patient! The WCG is here for the long haul, it'll be waiting for you next week, next month or next year. Maybe by then they'll have sorted their PR out, and you can reconsider joining up (or rejoining). If you are desperate for a rebuttal, there actually are several statements which (if you add them up) effectively amount to one, but they're all over the place at the moment. With a bit of work you may be able to find them all! Either way, good luck ... and if you aren't convinced by the WCG, remember Folding@Home too (http://folding.stanford.edu/ ). smile

TO PEOPLE WHO COULDN'T BE BOTHERED TO READ MY POST AND JUST WENT STRAIGHT TO THE END: I don't blame you! So, I'll provide a summary for you instead. I am fodder for your stomach, please crave me O bloodthirsty US Department of Defence-funded over-profitable pharmaceutical corpo-wolf, eat me, I am tastier than chalk! laughing

Hope nobody is offended by that last one... I think scepticism is extremely healthy, especially where the USA and big corporations are concerned! But sometimes it can be misplaced, and I think now might be one of those times. Heck, if IBM got their act together, they might even be able to convince you! wink
----------------------------------------
[Edit 2 times, last edit by ErikaT at Oct 15, 2009 12:53:45 PM]
[Nov 21, 2004 6:13:26 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
If anything this thread is evidence of a poorly managed project.

I agree with many of the concerns expressed in this thread. I also find it disturbing that nobody from the organization was able to address the concerns. In my opinion l it points to a very poorly executed project. If they wont take the initiative to answer the questions, and put priority on monitoring their user forum. I think it's obvious they're either being evasive or they're simply mismanaging this project.

After 5 pages and no answers. If they can't even structure this kind of project with competence I wonder what use the data we cruch will be.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 2 times, last edit by Former Member at Nov 21, 2004 9:02:38 PM]
[Nov 21, 2004 8:55:31 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Is this a Non-Profit organization ??

@MichaelcBrown: Whoa. You said what I had on my mind, only you did it much better. Thanks :)
[Nov 21, 2004 10:04:47 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Brace Potthoff
Cruncher
Joined: Nov 16, 2004
Post Count: 19
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Is this a Non-Profit organization ??

Well said, Michael Brown. Well said. My client is running nearly 24/7 and I feel very confident about the altruism of the World Community Grid. I can't see how they could be much more clear on the matter: all results must be placed into the hands of the public, and the projects being researched must be for not-for-profit purposes. Now that I've actually read about the nature of the WCG, it seems to me that those turning off their clients do so not based on reason, but apparently out of paranoia. Skepticism is fine, but when a site tells you the results must rest in public hands and the projects that yield those results must be for non-profit purposes, and then people turn around and say "Is this for non-profit?" I think we can safely discard their concerns as irrational.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by Brace Potthoff at Nov 21, 2004 11:35:57 PM]
[Nov 21, 2004 11:27:49 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Is this a Non-Profit organization ??

"Does no one find it strange that this thread is now 2 and a half pages long and not one "official" person has answered this simple question?

Where are the "moderators"? Or have they been told to keep their mouth shut and let the "members" flounder around and guess the answer?

Their silence seems to suggest that the answer is "no" and they realize that they would kill the project if they confessed up."


Well said. I wait for their ""honest"' official answer !!
[Nov 22, 2004 6:56:41 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Brace Potthoff
Cruncher
Joined: Nov 16, 2004
Post Count: 19
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Is this a Non-Profit organization ??

myloginid123 said...

""Does no one find it strange that this thread is now 2 and a half pages long and not one "official" person has answered this simple question?

Where are the "moderators"? Or have they been told to keep their mouth shut and let the "members" flounder around and guess the answer?

Their silence seems to suggest that the answer is "no" and they realize that they would kill the project if they confessed up."


Well said. I wait for their ""honest"' official answer !!"



I'm afraid this is the logic fallacy of an argument from silence. We cannot simply assume that no answer is a negative answer. Further, there are other topics requesting information and offering suggestions that haven't had the grace of a moderator's response. Perhaps if this were the only topic that didn' t have a moderator's input, you might have a case. As it is, that's not the case, so silence in this particular topic means essentially nothing. Countless other topics - seemingly most topics - do not have moderators engaging discussion with others. Thus logic would denote there is probable cause for the silence of moderators on all topics, not just this one. So unless you want to make the ludicrous assertion that all topics that have not had a moderator respond to them should be presumed to have a negative response, the argument from silence in this topic crumbles to dust.

Further still, they have already given answers to the questions here: ignoring them does not make them disappear. Asking "Is this for non-profit" when the site says each project must be for "not-for-profit purposes" is irrational. If people won't accept the answer they've been given, it's going to do very little good to repeat what is already posted at the site. For example, I've already refutted the objections of people here by referencing the claims found elsewhere at this site and explaining to them in simple terms how it answers their conerns. Each time, it seems my posts are ignored by those I refute and other people come in asking the same questions. With so many people asking questions and not listening to the answers given, it becomes pointless very quick to keep giving those answers.

Perhaps a big flashing sign saying, "must be for not-for-profit purposes" and "results must be available to the public within 6 months" might help? We could attach some fog horns to the sign that go off each time someone passes just to make sure they see it. Is that the only way people will stop asking questions and raising objections that have already been answered?
----------------------------------------
[Edit 4 times, last edit by Brace Potthoff at Nov 22, 2004 7:22:04 PM]
[Nov 22, 2004 7:07:34 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Posts: 104   Pages: 11   [ Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Next Page ]
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread