Samumed has raised $438 million with a $12 billion valuation. Samumed is a leader in medical research and development for tissue-level regeneration. They have a biotechnology platform based on small molecule-based Wnt pathway modulation, they develop therapeutics to address a range of degenerative diseases, regenerative medicine and oncology.
One of the primary signaling pathways that regulate the self-renewal and differentiation of adult stem cells is the Wnt pathway, which plays a crucial role in tissue health, ranging from formation to replenishment and from repair to regeneration of various tissues.
Samumed’s small-molecule drug platform is harnessing the innate restorative power of the Wnt pathway to reverse the course of severe and prevalent diseases.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Unity Biotechnology are currently in phase 1 testing of their Senolytic treatment for osteoarthritis of the knees.
Unity Biotechnology are currently in phase 1 testing of their Senolytic treatment for osteoarthritis of the knees.
As someone with osteoarthritis (in my hands), I really welcome progress. But every time we dig deeper into biology at the molecular/cellular level, the more complexity we discover. Side effects are frequent, and sometimes the therapy doesn’t work because there’s more than we know actually going on. By the way, isn’t it amazing just how complex, interactive, and information rich that cellular processes actually are? The idea that all this happened as a result of unguided random accidents winnowed out by natural selection is increasingly absurd.
As someone with osteoarthritis (in my hands) I really welcome progress. But every time we dig deeper into biology at the molecular/cellular level the more complexity we discover. Side effects are frequent and sometimes the therapy doesn’t work because there’s more than we know actually going on. By the way isn’t it amazing just how complex interactive and information rich that cellular processes actually are? The idea that all this happened as a result of unguided random accidents winnowed out by natural selection is increasingly absurd.
You can do an awful lot of random exploration of “design space” when you’ve got billions of years and a planet sized laboratory.
+1 for engaging, Brett. Not so easy here on Vuke, which loathes citations and evidence. As for life being a “horrible kludge” created by bumbling mistakes that just happened to work, that seems contrary to the fact that we cannot create life yet, not even with our smartest scientists, engineers, and modern technology. You would think this would be easy if it truly were a kludge! 😉 Now that we can examine life down to the molecular level, the efficiencies, rational trade-offs, and sheer brilliance of the designs have become quite evident. Gone, for instance, is the much touted “junk” DNA concept, useless genetic leftovers from previous organisms. Instead, as the ENCODE project found and has since been shown by study after study, non-protein coding DNA & RNA (“junk”) has great utility, particularly in regulating the expression of genes. Darwin zero, Design one. Or take the photoreceptors located at the back of the retina instead of the front. Clearly a kludge, since at the front they’d get a clearer view of incoming light. Except, upon further scientific review, we find… “Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly. Indeed in simply engineered systems, like CMOS or CCD image sensors, a back-illuminated design manufactured by flipping the silicon wafer and thinning it so that light hits the photocathode without having to navigate the wiring layer can improve photon capture across a wide wavelength band. But real eyes are much more crafty than that.” Read more at: phys org news 2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple
Actually, (Speaking as an engineer whose second major was human biology.) this horrible kludge looks like just the sort of thing you’d get from an unguided series of random accidents winnowed out by natural selection. Design would produce something much more orderly.
You can do an awful lot of random exploration of design space”” when you’ve got billions of years and a planet sized laboratory.”””
+1 for engaging Brett. Not so easy here on Vuke which loathes citations and evidence.As for life being a horrible kludge”” created by bumbling mistakes that just happened to work”” that seems contrary to the fact that we cannot create life yet not even with our smartest scientists engineers and modern technology. You would think this would be easy if it truly were a kludge! ;)Now that we can examine life down to the molecular level the efficiencies rational trade-offs and sheer brilliance of the designs have become quite evident. Gone for instance”” is the much touted “”””junk”””” DNA concept”” useless genetic leftovers from previous organisms. Instead as the ENCODE project found and has since been shown by study after study”” non-protein coding DNA & RNA (“”””junk””””) has great utility”” particularly in regulating the expression of genes. Darwin zero Design one.Or take the photoreceptors located at the back of the retina instead of the front. Clearly a kludge since at the front they’d get a clearer view of incoming light. Except upon further scientific review”” we find…””””Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint”” it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye like a traditional front-illuminated camera might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer like a cephalopod is folly. Indeed in simply engineered systems like CMOS or CCD image sensors”” a back-illuminated design manufactured by flipping the silicon wafer and thinning it so that light hits the photocathode without having to navigate the wiring layer can improve photon capture across a wide wavelength band. But real eyes are much more crafty than that.””””Read more at: phys org news 2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple”””
Actually (Speaking as an engineer whose second major was human biology.) this horrible kludge looks like just the sort of thing you’d get from an unguided series of random accidents winnowed out by natural selection.Design would produce something much more orderly.
You can do an awful lot of random exploration of “design space” when you’ve got billions of years and a planet sized laboratory.
+1 for engaging, Brett. Not so easy here on Vuke, which loathes citations and evidence.
As for life being a “horrible kludge” created by bumbling mistakes that just happened to work, that seems contrary to the fact that we cannot create life yet, not even with our smartest scientists, engineers, and modern technology. You would think this would be easy if it truly were a kludge! 😉
Now that we can examine life down to the molecular level, the efficiencies, rational trade-offs, and sheer brilliance of the designs have become quite evident. Gone, for instance, is the much touted “junk” DNA concept, useless genetic leftovers from previous organisms. Instead, as the ENCODE project found and has since been shown by study after study, non-protein coding DNA & RNA (“junk”) has great utility, particularly in regulating the expression of genes. Darwin zero, Design one.
Or take the photoreceptors located at the back of the retina instead of the front. Clearly a kludge, since at the front they’d get a clearer view of incoming light. Except, upon further scientific review, we find…
“Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly. Indeed in simply engineered systems, like CMOS or CCD image sensors, a back-illuminated design manufactured by flipping the silicon wafer and thinning it so that light hits the photocathode without having to navigate the wiring layer can improve photon capture across a wide wavelength band. But real eyes are much more crafty than that.”
Read more at: phys org news 2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple
Actually, (Speaking as an engineer whose second major was human biology.) this horrible kludge looks like just the sort of thing you’d get from an unguided series of random accidents winnowed out by natural selection.
Design would produce something much more orderly.
Unity Biotechnology are currently in phase 1 testing of their Senolytic treatment for osteoarthritis of the knees.
As someone with osteoarthritis (in my hands), I really welcome progress.
But every time we dig deeper into biology at the molecular/cellular level, the more complexity we discover. Side effects are frequent, and sometimes the therapy doesn’t work because there’s more than we know actually going on.
By the way, isn’t it amazing just how complex, interactive, and information rich that cellular processes actually are? The idea that all this happened as a result of unguided random accidents winnowed out by natural selection is increasingly absurd.