Replies to post #134006 on Biotech Values

[ghmm]

A few guesses come to mind but I will assume its not anatomy or epidemiology differences between humans and insects and say it is a numbers issue. The larger number of insects would better facilitate larger studies where the magnitude of benefit could be much smaller because of the larger trial size and still show statistical significance.

[biomaven0]

“If people were insects, there would be more approved drugs on the market.”

Some suggestions:

- Insects have a shorter life span, so it would be much easier to do survival trials. Long-term toxicity would also be less of a problem.

- There would be a lot of good models because there are so many different types of insects and I'm guessing the difference between different insect species is less than the difference between humans and any non-primate model

- The FDA approval standards for animal drugs is different (and lower) than it is for humans.

Peter

[ghmm]

Since Peter made more than one guess so will I :-). What about the number of species being much greater in insects. So the number of potential diseases is greater and also a drug candidate failing in one species may be successful in another.

[Robert C Jonson]

Drugs would be approved by insects and they could care less about standards, so they would approve more.

[exwannabe]

Insects!

Answer 1)

The market for insect repellants to get rid of in-laws would be friggen huge. :-)

Answer 2)

There are already more "drugs" on the market that are targeted at insects (directly, or indirectly via plants) than human drugs.

[I have no idea if this is factually true, but would be a good answer if so]

[md1225]

Insects are immune to most of the diseases that threaten man they have evolved to survive plague are immune to cancer it would be rediculous to worry about S/E etc since insects are very hard to kill with most biologics that treat man. So in turn the safety profile would be excellent for all meds even Avastin or say interferon. Just a guess

[apljack]

Insects in general, particularly social insects, have a much higher degree of "altruism" with regard to individual sacrifice vis a vis the group (think ants or bees who will gladly sacrifice their individual life for the good of the colony/hive). An individual insect's death would be inconsequential in light of group survival.

The corollary here would mean that insects would be much more tolerant of the potential adverse effects of drugs that would cure many at the cost of killing the few. We humans have not been able to negotiate this cost/benefit analysis, skewing our allowance of "acceptable" loss due to drug side effects to the very end of the continuum.

Happy New Year to all,

aj

[exwannabe]

Insects, it is the species, stupid.

Insects would approve drugs that are good for the entire population as a whole, even if perhaps wrong for an individual.

WRT contagious indications, this coud be very significant. I suspect it is easy to stop the spread of many viruses if you do not care about the carrier being an "AE".

[biomaven0]

If people were insects

Well tox would be much less of a problem - we'd just mutate to avoid the toxicity! (Given that bugs seem to be able to develop resistance to stuff like BT that is specifically designed to kill them, a few generations should be able to easily avoid any incidental toxicity from a drug).

Or maybe the Fly and Drosophila Administration is just not going to be bothered with stuff like proportional hazards...

Happy New Year everyone!

Peter

[DewDiligence]

Brain-teaser update: Some of the answers have been clever, but most of them are barking up the wrong tree. The “warmest” answer to date (although barely tepid) is the one posted by Robert Jonson in #msg-70420643.

[FreeNorth]

Since the premise is false, the statement is logically true.

[Robert C Jonson]

“If people were insects, there would be more approved drugs on the market.”


The key to the puzzle is in the
"number" of approved drugs on the market.

Let number = the number of kinds of approved drugs on the market.

Let number = the total number of drugs on the market, irrespective of kinds.

Since the total population of insects is some multiple of the total population of people, if people were insects, the "people" population would be higher than now. Hence the market would bear a higher number of approved drugs and there would be more approved drugs on the market than at present.

And that is why Peregrine Pharmaceuticals is not a scam.

[iandy]

It would be much easier to design drugs for insects than humans.
Testing drugs on insect is really quick.

[floblu14]

Insects NEVER complain nor talk back. People do! :-)

[oc631]

“If people were insects, there would be more approved drugs on the market.”

Animal studies wouldn't be required. More drugs would make it into the clinic leading to a higher approval rate.

[hmpa]

Eggs v. live birth?
Since insects lay eggs very soon after fertilization, embriotoxicity issues will likely not exist, as well as anything related to nursing mothers, etc.

[jbog]

“If people were insects, there would be more approved drugs on the market.”

It has been estimated that there could be up to 10,000,000 different species of insects which are divided up into about 32 orders.

The lifespan of insects range from a couple of minutes up to almost 15 years for the female ant. (the male ant on the other hand only lives a couple of days and then dies once he gets laid, lucky guy doesn't have to cuddle afterward)

Getting back to your question, today's drugs are only approved for normally two groups, whereas you couldn't have a one size fits all scenario covering the insect population.

[Robert C Jonson]

“If people were insects, there would be more approved drugs on the market.”

My last try:

There would be more approved drugs because no drug applications would be rejected for safety issues Insects sacrifice individuals for the benefit of the whole.

[Superfly15]

“If people were insects, there would be more approved drugs on the market.”

There aren't many diseases that cause disease in insects, so R&D money would be more focused on the things that actually do cause disease.

There are a limited number of bacteria that cause disease in insects, which shows that insects have an effective antibacterial system.

http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agcom/newscolumns/archives/OSL/2003/November/031113OSL.htm

Way out there thinking I'm doing...maybe I need to return to bed. lol

[imnot6]

Insect drug trials would be only be phase III

Insects' "decision making" (usually focused on finding prime spots for food or nest-building)involves "randomized" wandering and subsequent revisiting/verification of promising sites by large numbers of individuals to "cover all the bases" as it were when looking for a solution. Thus no decisions based on early-stage "promising" results, but rather massive brute-force collection of statistics from the get-go.

[Robert C Jonson]

Dew, based on guesses to this brainteaser and your replies to them, it seems to me that there is not enough information to solve it; i.e, what human attributes do humans retain as insects for purposes of this brainteaser? For example, do they still have human intelligence (I assume so, otherwise there would be no drugs to begin with)? Do they reproduce as humans or insects (if as the latter, then I think my #2 answer is a correct one)? Is their lifespan humanoid or insectoid? I think you need to share your assumptions about this "metamorphosis" with us.

[dav1234]

“If people were insects, there would be more approved drugs on the market.”

any insect lawyers?, do insects use money? without money or lawyers almost anything could be approved ,since nothing to lose,lol.

[DewDiligence]

Solution to the brain teaser in #msg-70419878…

Justify the following assertion:

“If people were insects, there would be more approved drugs on the market.”

If people were insects, they would be hexapedal and would likely designate 0.06 as the de facto threshold for statistical significance.