Shyam's Slide Share Presentations

VIRTUAL LIBRARY "KNOWLEDGE - KORRIDOR"

This article/post is from a third party website. The views expressed are that of the author. We at Capacity Building & Development may not necessarily subscribe to it completely. The relevance & applicability of the content is limited to certain geographic zones.It is not universal.

TO VIEW MORE CONTENT ON THIS SUBJECT AND OTHER TOPICS, Please visit KNOWLEDGE-KORRIDOR our Virtual Library

Showing posts with label . Shyamsunder Panchavati.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label . Shyamsunder Panchavati.. Show all posts

Saturday, June 22, 2019

3 technologies that could define the next decade of cybersecurity 06-22





In little over a decade, cybercrime has moved from being a specialist and niche-crime type to one of the most significant strategic risks facing the world today, according to the World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2019. Nearly every technologically advanced state and emerging economy in the world has made it a priority to mitigate the impact of financially motivated cybercrime. 


The global experience of the past decade has largely been dominated by the emergence of a professional underground economy that provides scale, significant return-on-investment and entry points for criminals to turn a technical specialist crime into a global volume crime. The cybersecurity landscape in the past decade has been shaped by the targeting of financial institutions, notably with malware configured to harvest payment information and target financial platforms. The early cybercrime market that gave rise to the criminal online ecosystem was centred on the trading of harvested stolen credit cards, and some of the most high-profile and sophisticated global attacks focus on the penetration and manipulation of the internal networks of complex global payment systems. 


The Russian-speaking world has not been immune from these trends. Cyberattacks on financial organizations in Russia, Central Asia and Eastern Europe by some of the most sophisticated cybercrime gangs in the world have targeted clients, digital channels and networks. The Russian-speaking underground economy is one of the most active globally, with hundreds of fora and tens of thousands of users. Criminal groups exploit the margins of co-operation to conduct global campaigns, and their threat capacity is always adapting as groups work together in a borderless environment to combat technical defences. 



The past 10 years mark only the start of the global cybersecurity journey. New architectures and cooperation are required as we stand at the brink of a new era of cybercrime, which will be empowered by new and emergent technology. These three technologies might very well define the next 10 years of global cybersecurity: 

1. 5G networks and infrastructure convergence

A new generation of 5G networks will be the single most challenging issue for the cybersecurity landscape. It is not just faster internet; the design of 5G will mean that the world will enter into an era where, by 2025, 75 billion new devices will be connecting to the internet every year, running critical applications and infrastructure at nearly 1,000 times the speed of the current internet. This will provide the architecture for connecting whole new industries, geographies and communities - but at the same time it will hugely alter the threat landscape, as it potentially moves cybercrime from being an invisible, financially driven issue to one where real and serious physical damage will occur at a 5G pace. 

5G will potentially provide any attacker with instant access to vulnerable networks. When this is combined with the enterprise and operational technology, a new generation of cyberattacks will emerge, some of which we are already seeing. The recent ransomware attack against the US city of Baltimore, for example, locked 10,000 employees out of their workstations. In the near future, smart city infrastructures will provide interconnected systems at a new scale, from transport systems for driverless cars, automated water and waste systems, to emergency workers and services, all interdependent and - potentially - as highly vulnerable as they are highly connected. In 2017, the WannaCry attack that took parts of the UK’s National Health Service down took days to spread globally, but in a 5G era the malware would spread this attack at the speed of light. It is clear that 5G will not only enable great prosperity and help to save people’s lives, it will also have the capacity to thrust cybercrime into the real world at a scale and with consequences yet unknown. 

2. Artificial intelligence

To build cyber defences capable of operating at the scale and pace needed to safeguard our digital prosperity, artificial intelligence (AI) is a critical component in how the world can build global immunity from attacks. Given the need for huge efficiencies in detection, provision of situational awareness and real-time remediation of threats, automation and AI-driven solutions are the future of cybersecurity. Critically, however, the experience of cybercrime to-date shows that any technical developments in AI are quickly seized upon and exploited by the criminal community, posing entirely new challenges to cybersecurity in the global threat landscape. 

The use of AI by criminals will potentially bypass – in an instant – entire generations of technical controls that industries have built up over decades. In the financial services sector we will soon start to see criminals deploy malware with the ability to capture and exploit voice synthesis technology, mimicking human behaviour and biometric data to circumvent authentication of controls for people’s bank accounts, for example. But this is only the beginning. Criminal use of AI will almost certainly generate new attack cycles, highly targeted and deployed for the greatest impact, and in ways that were not thought possible in industries never previously targeted: in areas such as biotech, for the theft and manipulation of stored DNA code; mobility, for the hijacking of unmanned vehicles; and healthcare, where ransomware will be timed and deployed for maximum impact. 

3. Biometrics

To combat these emerging threats, biometrics is being widely introduced in different sectors and with various aims around the world, while at the same time raising significant challenges for the global security community. Biometrics and next-generation authentication require high volumes of data about an individual, their activity and behaviour. Voices, faces and the slightest details of movement and behavioural traits will need to be stored globally, and this will drive cybercriminals to target and exploit a new generation of personal data. Exploitation will no longer be limited to the theft of people’s credit card number, but will target theft of their being – their fingerprints, voice identification and retinal scans. 

Most experts agree that three-factor authentication is the best available option, and that two-factor authentication is a must. ‘Know’ (password), ‘have’ (token) and ‘are’ (biometrics) are the three factors for authentication, and each one makes this process stronger and more secure. For those charged with defending our digital future, however, understanding an entire ecosystem of biometric software, technology and storage points makes it still harder to defend the rapidly and ever-expanding attack surface.

What next?

Over the past decade, criminals have been able to seize on a low-risk, high-reward landscape in which attribution is rare and significant pressure is placed on the traditional levers and responses to crime. In the next 10 years, the cybersecurity landscape could change significantly, driven by a new generation of transformative technology. To understand how to secure our shared digital future we must first understand how the security community believes the cyberthreat will change and how the consequent risk landscape will be transformed. This critical and urgent analysis must be based on evidence and research, and must leverage the expertise of those in academia, the technical community and policymakers 

around the world. By doing this, the security ecosystem can help build a new generation of cybersecurity defences and partnerships that will enable global prosperity. 






Thursday, June 20, 2019

AI analyzes language to predict schizophrenia 06-21



AI analyzes language to predict schizophrenia.....

A machine learning method found out a hidden clue in people’s language that can predict psychosis episodes. 


A machine learning method uncovered a hidden clue in people’s language predictive of the later manifestation of psychosis: the frequent use of words associated with sound. A paper published by the journal npj Schizophrenia released the findings by scientists from Emory University and Harvard University.

Hidden details

The researchers developed a new machine-learning methodology to more precisely quantify the semantic richness of people’s conversational language (a known indicator for psychosis). Their results indicated that automated analysis of the two language variables (more frequent use of words associated with sound and speaking with low semantic density, or vagueness) can predict if an at-risk person will later develop psychosis with an impressive 93 percent accuracy.
Trained clinicians had not noticed how individuals at risk for psychosis use more words associated with sound than the average population, though abnormal auditory perception is a pre-clinical symptom.
“Voices: Living with Schizophrenia” by WebMD, YouTube.
Machine learning can spot patterns in people’s use of language that even doctors who have undergone training to diagnose and treat those at risk of psychosis may not notice. “Trying to hear these subtleties in conversations with people is like trying to see microscopic germs with your eyes,” says first study author Neguine Rezaii, a fellow in the Department of Neurology at Harvard Medical School. That being said, it is possible to use machine learning to find subtle patterns hiding in people’s language. “It’s like a microscope for warning signs of psychosis,” she adds. Rezaii started working on the study while she was a resident in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Emory University School of Medicine.
“Trying to hear these subtleties in conversations with people is like trying to see microscopic germs with your eyes,” Neguine Rezaii, fellow in the Department of Neurology at Harvard Medical School.

Behind the data

Researchers first used machine learning to establish “norms” for conversational language. They fed a computer software program the online
conversations of 30,000 users of Reddit, a popular social media platform where people have informal discussions about a wide array of sujects. The software program, known as Word2Vec, utilizes an algorithm to change individual words to vectors, assigning each one a location in a semantic space based on its meaning. Such with similar meanings are positioned closer together than those with different meanings.
They also developed a computer program to perform “vector unpacking,” or analysis of the semantic density of word usage. Previous work has measured semantic coherence between sentences. Vector unpacking enabled the researchers to quantify how much information was packed into each sentence. After generating a baseline of “normal” data, the researchers applied the same techniques to diagnostic interviews of 40 participants that had been conducted by trained clinicians, as part of the multi-site North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS), funded by the National Institutes of Health. 
Vector unpacking enabled the researchers to quantify how much information was packed into each sentence.
The automated analyses of the participant samples were then compared to the normal baseline sample and the longitudinal data on whether the participants converted to psychosis.
"This research is interesting not just for its potential to reveal more about mental illness, but for understanding how the mind works” concludes senior author Phillip Wolff, a professor of psychology at Emory.

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Scientists Are Developing New Ways to Treat Disease With Cells, Not Drugs 09-27




When Nichelle Obar learned she was pregnant with her second child last year, she never expected that her pregnancy, or her baby, would make history.

But when the 40-year-old food-and-beverage coordinator from Hawaii and her fiancé Christopher Constantino went to their 18-week ultrasound, they learned something was wrong. The heart was larger than it should have been, and there was evidence that fluid was starting to build up around the organ as well. Both were signs that the fetus was working extra hard to pump blood to its fast-growing body and that its heart was starting to fail.
Obar’s doctor knew what could be causing it. Obar and Constantino are both carriers of a genetic blood disorder called alpha thalassemia, which can lead to dangerously low levels of red blood cells. Red blood cells carry hemoglobin, which binds to oxygen and transports it from the lungs to feed other cells–so fewer red blood cells means low levels of oxygen in cells throughout the body. Neither parent is affected by the condition, but depending on how their genes combined, their children could be.
When Obar was pregnant with their first child, Gabriel, the couple was told that if he had the disease, his prognosis would be grim. “The information we got was that most babies don’t survive, and if they do survive to birth, they might not live for too long,” Obar says. Gabriel was lucky. The DNA he inherited from his mom and dad did not endow his cells with enough of the mutation to make him sick. 
But soon after that 18-week ultrasound, their second baby, a girl, was officially diagnosed with alpha thalassemia. “We were pretty devastated,” Obar says. They did not have many options: their daughter would need blood transfusions in utero just to improve her chances of being born, and even if she survived to birth, she might need regular transfusions for the rest of her life, relying on a healthy donor’s blood to make up for the low oxygen in her own.
Their genetic counselor did have one other suggestion, but it was a long shot. She had just learned about a study at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), testing a daring new way to potentially treat alpha thalassemia: a stem-cell transplant given to the baby in utero.
In utero stem-cell transplants had been tried before for the blood disorder but with limited success. Blood stem cells, which develop into all of the different types of blood cells, are extracted from a donor’s bone marrow, processed in a lab and injected directly into the umbilical vein connecting the fetus to the mother’s placenta. Ideally, the donor’s healthy stem cells then start dividing and take over for the fetus’ defective blood cells. But removing bone marrow can be risky in pregnant women, so past trials involving alpha thalassemia used stem cells from fathers, which were often rejected. This new trial challenged the ethical question: Was it worth the risk to the mother in order to possibly save the fetus? There was also a chance the transplant could harm Obar’s daughter more than it helped. But on the basis of new studies suggesting that a developing fetus would tolerate a mother’s transplanted cells better than a father’s, Dr. Tippi Mackenzie, a professor of surgery at UCSF and the leader of the study, believed it was worth a shot.
Obar had concerns, but if the cells worked as they were expected to, it could give her daughter a chance at life, hopefully even a normal life free of her disease. She and Constantino decided to try it. Their daughter would be the first fetus in the world to receive stem cells from her mother in a carefully monitored clinical trial. 
While blood stem cells from bone marrow have long been a cornerstone of treating blood cancers like leukemia and lymphoma, Mackenzie’s trial extracting the cells from a pregnant woman to treat a developing fetus in utero is just one of several innovative uses of stem cells to treat a growing list of diseases with cells instead of drugs. And promising studies are inching more of these stem-cell-based treatments closer to finally being tested in people. 
With stem cells like those found in bone marrow, scientists are taking advantage of what the body does naturally: generate itself anew. Many of the adult body’s organs and tissues, including fat cells and blood, are equipped with their own stash of stem cells whose sole job is to regenerate cells and tissues when older ones are damaged or die off and which can be harvested for research and growth outside the body.
Some organs are not endowed with these large stem-cell reservoirs, however, most notably the brain and heart muscle. So more than two decades ago, scientists found another source of these flexible cells–in embryos that were donated for research from in vitro fertilization clinics. They learned how to grow these cells in the lab into any cells in the body. That opened the possibility that conditions like heart disease, diabetes or even psychiatric disorders might eventually be treated by replacing damaged tissues or organs with healthy ones, which could provide cures and treatments that didn’t require drugs or surgery.
But using cells obtained from human embryos raised serious ethical questions; because extracting the embryonic stem cells required terminating what some felt was a living human being, for years federal law prevented scientists from using government funds to conduct research on these cells.
Beginning in 2006, scientists found a detour around this ethical roadblock. A Japanese team led by Shinya Yamanaka from Kyoto University showed it’s possible to take a skin cell from any person, erase its life history as a skin cell and return it to the clean slate it had in the embryo–turning it essentially into an embryonic stem cell without the morally complicated provenance. Called induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, these malleable cells can be coaxed in a lab dish, with the right cocktail of factors, into becoming heart muscle, brain nerves or insulin-pumping pancreatic cells. 
In the quest to try these treatments on patients, there have been false starts. In 2009, the FDA approved the first embryonic-stem-cell clinical trial, which involved transplanting nerve cells made from stem cells into paralyzed people to restore the function of spinal nerves. In initial tests with mice, however, the transplanted cells started to form concerning clumps, which were not tumors but raised enough alarms about the safety of the therapy that the FDA put the study on hold; after resuming the trial, the company conducting the research eventually decided to stop it.
Now, with more years of study and experience, scientists are preparing to test whether stem cells that transform into heart muscle could replace dead tissue after a heart attack, for example, or whether pancreatic cells that can’t produce enough insulin might be replaced with new cells that can do the job in people with Type 1 diabetes. Researchers even hope to one day treat brain disorders like Parkinson’s with new neurons made from stem cells that can replace the damaged motor nerves in the brain that lead to uncontrollable tremors.
“With stem cells we can now get to the root cause of a disease and start looking for cures rather than [treatment] patches,” says Dr. Deepak Srivastava, director of the Roddenberry Stem Cell Center at the Gladstone Institutes and a professor at UCSF.
Not only can stem cells lead to new treatments for diseases where they can replace ailing cells, but they can also provide a critical new way to study conditions that have remained black boxes because scientists simply didn’t have the luxury of studying live cells. Now labs across the country are incubating so-called mini-brains, made up of tens of thousands of brain cells grown from iPS cells, to serve as models for studying psychiatric disorders from autism to schizophrenia. Such knowledge could lead to new treatments in a field where therapies haven’t been as widely successful as doctors hoped.
Putting the entire universe of stem-cell research together, from iPS cells to the new use of blood stem cells that Obar’s daughter received from her mother, Mackenzie says, “it’s an unbelievably exciting time to be in medicine, with all of these things exploding around us.”

Wednesday is feeding day for Dr. Job de Jong’s 300 mini-brains. It takes de Jong, a postdoctoral fellow in the division of molecular therapeutics at Columbia University, a couple of hours to painstakingly suck out the few microliters of waste each ball of brain tissue has generated over the past week with a pipette, being careful not to disturb the cells themselves, and replace the fluid with a pinkish-orange liquid diet of growth factors, nutrients, glucose and protein-building amino acids.
The cells, barely visible at the bottom of tiny wells in the neuropsychiatry lab’s version of an ice-cube tray, are somewhere between a poppy seed and a peppercorn in size. Made from iPS cells, they could provide the first window into understanding what goes wrong when psychiatric disorders strike.
Treatment for psychiatric illnesses still lags behind advances in other diseases, mainly because it’s been nearly impossible to access the living brain for testing. As a substitute, neuroscientists relied on mouse brains, or slides of human brain tissue obtained after people with mental illnesses had died, as their primary source of data. Now Dr. Sander Markx, director of the precision-medicine initiative at Columbia who oversees de Jong’s work on the mini-brains, is hoping it could lead to a pioneering study in using stem cells to find and test new treatments for psychiatric disorders for the first time.
So far, the mini-brains contain the same 20,000 genes that any human cell’s DNA contains and produce all of the relevant proteins that any brain cell would. (Because they lack all the structures of a whole brain, however, Markx and de Jong prefer to call them “organoids.”) The balls of brain tissue he is nurturing came from iPS cells generated from people in the Amish community. Some are from healthy people, others from those affected by a rare genetic brain disorder that involves autism-spectrum symptoms, intellectual disability and epileptic seizures. The stem cells were developed into the brain organoids to study how that genetic aberration affects normal brain development. “Now we have this opportunity to study the processes of how [brain cells] grow and develop and observe them in the lab,” de Jong says. He and his team are investigating how closely the organoids replicate actual disease processes in people and are hoping to eventually use the mini-brain cells to screen for promising drugs that may undo the effects of the mutation.
Scientists are also making headway in regenerating tissues and parts of organs to simply replace ones affected by disease. People with cancer whose windpipes or urethras have been destroyed by tumors, for example, can grow new ones from their own cells, reducing the risk of rejection from a transplant.
One early trial to treat macular degeneration, completed in 2014, is already showing promising results in patients. The trial involved growing embryonic stem cells obtained from IVF embryos into retinal pigment epithelial cells, the same cells that start to degrade in people with the disease, eventually robbing them of their sight. The cells were then introduced into the eyes of patients to replace their failing retinas. After nearly two years, more than half of the small number of people who were legally blind at the start of the study have reported some improvement in their vision.
Treatments are also beginning to take advantage of iPS technology to make adult stem cells act as if they’re embryonic–sidestepping the ethical concerns that cling to the real kind.
The process is especially critical for healing the human heart. Adult heart muscle no longer divides, or it divides so infrequently that when heart tissue is damaged–as in a heart attack–it doesn’t regenerate. Instead it turns into scar tissue, hampering the heart’s ability to pump blood. But Srivastava of the Gladstone Institutes has found that in a developing fetus, heart-muscle cells are actively dividing in order to form the heart, and he isolated four genes that are turned on during that period and then switched off at birth to stop heart cells from continuing to divide. Reactivating those genes in healthy adult heart cells made them divide again. And turning on embryonic genes even in scarred heart tissue converted those cells into new muscle as well. “We figured out what nature’s toolbox is for making the heart in the embryo,” he says, “and we redeployed the same cues in the adult to reprogram support cells to becoming new heart muscle.”
Srivastava says the strategy may be useful not only for producing new heart muscle but for growing other types of cells too. In late 2016 he co-founded Tenaya Therapeutics to refine the technique, and the company is now preparing a treatment to test in patients.
Such stem-cell-based biotech companies are popping up throughout the country to address different types of diseases. At Semma Therapeutics, based in Cambridge, Mass., Douglas Melton, a co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, is pursuing ways to generate a population of insulin-pumping pancreatic cells from people affected by Type 1 diabetes, like his two children. His latest studies showed that the cells, made from iPS cells, can detect and respond to changing levels of sugar and effectively dial up and down how much insulin they produce. But with Type 1 diabetes, replacing these cells with new ones from stem cells doesn’t solve the entire problem, since the immune system seems to be attacking the pancreatic cells. So he and his colleagues at Semma developed a way to protect the newly formed insulin-making pancreatic cells from destruction by encasing them in a membrane that can slip past the immune system. Melton hopes to test that delivery system, and his insulin-making cells made from stem cells, in the next two years. “Insulin was discovered in 1920, and I like the idea that at the 100-year mark we may be done injecting insulin,” he says. 
As with any emerging technology, the opportunities that stem cells represent have also been shadowed by the potential for exploitation. A report published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017 described a study in which retinal cells created from stem cells extracted from patients’ own fat cells were transplanted to treat macular degeneration; it was shut down after three people in the trial were left with severe vision loss following the treatment. A review of the trial revealed that the volunteers paid the company running the study for the experimental treatment, which is unusual for clinical trials. The review also exposed irregularities in how the people were recruited and informed about the study, and raised questions about exactly what types of cells the people received.
“Whatever we take forward to test clinically, we’d have to make sure the therapy we are using is safe,” says Srivastava. 
Obar’s fears about being the first pregnant woman to use her own stem cells in a study to treat her baby’s alpha thalassemia in utero were quickly assuaged when she watched the blood transfusions take place. “I watched on a video the stem-cell machine and saw the white dots that were the stem cells swirling in the needle that was going into me,” she says. Her daughter received five transfusions via an injection into the umbilical vein through Obar’s abdomen. “I was just blown away by how it looked,” she says. “It was pretty cool.”
For Obar, the possibility that the stem cells could become a permanent fix for her daughter’s condition was worth the risks of being the pioneer. And the procedure does seem to be working. Before the birth, Obar’s doctors warned her that her daughter might look blue when she took her first breaths and that she might seem weaker than other newborns. But not only did her daughter continue to survive the pregnancy, but she also let out a lusty cry when she was born that immediately put Obar’s mind at ease. Now 7 months old, the baby, whom they named Elianna, is eating well and working on rolling over. There’s still a chance she may show some developmental delays and cognitive effects from her condition in the future, but Obar and Constantino are hoping for the best.
Mackenzie gives Elianna another blood transfusion once a month, just to be safe, and plans to continue monitoring her carefully for a year to look for signs that Obar’s blood cells are starting to populate her daughter. Depending on how well Elianna does, Mackenzie plans to enroll more expectant mothers whose babies are affected by the blood disorder in the study.
The scientific impact of Mackenzie’s history-making stem-cell trial may be yet unknown, but the impact on the family is right there in the baby’s name. “I wanted a name to signify the fighter she is and what she went through,” says Obar. Throughout her pregnancy, none seemed quite right until she met the nurse who helped with her daughter’s first in utero blood transfusion. The nurse’s name was Elianna, which she learned means “God has answered.” “It’s perfect,” Obar says. 

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Why diagnosing Alzheimer’s today is so difficult—and how we can do better 07-17
































Shyam's take....

Bill Gates's next investment in Alzheimer’s research is in a new fund called Diagnostics Accelerator. This project of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF) aims to accelerate bold new ideas for earlier and better diagnosis of the disease. Bill Gates is planning to invest more than 30 million for this cause. 


It is not for the first time, that research in Alzheimer disease management or prevention research has received attention or funding. However, when a person like Bill Gates devotes time and funds for a cause, the cause itself receives widespread attention from people all over the world. The awareness for the cause increases manifold. It gives direction to many philanthropists as to which cause they should invest. It simultaneously encourages the devoted scientists, researchers and the medical professionals working for this cause. These people not only find light at the end of the tunnel, they feel the entire tunnel has brightened up. This way Bill Gates involvement, more than the investment proves to be driver and huge catalyst. For me, his devoting time for the cause, is more important than his investment. I also like his idea of  venture philanthropy, it could mean that research could at least fund itself partially and the end product could bring back some returns for the investors or help create a corpus, that could fund further research.  Kudos Mr. Gates.

Now please read the article.....

When I announced that I was investing in Alzheimer’s research for the first time last fall, I thought I knew what to expect. I knew I would get to engage more deeply with the brilliant scientists and advocates working to stop Alzheimer’s—and I haven’t been disappointed. The things I’ve seen over the last seven months make me more hopeful than ever.


What I didn’t see coming was the amazing response I got from the Alzheimer’s community at large. Because my family didn’t talk publicly about my dad’s diagnosis before the announcement, I had yet to experience how remarkable the support community is. So many of you have shared your personal experiences with me, both in person and online (including here on TGN). It helps to hear from others who are going through the same thing.


Alzheimer’s research is a frontier where we can dramatically improve human life—both the lives of people who have the disease and their loved ones. I’m optimistic that we can substantially alter the course of Alzheimer’s if we make progress in several key areas. One of the biggest things we could do right now is develop a reliable, affordable, and accessible diagnostic.


The process of getting diagnosed with Alzheimer’s today is less than ideal. It starts with a cognitive test. If you don’t perform well, your doctor needs to rule out all other possible causes for memory loss, like stroke or a nutritional deficiency. Then your doctor can order a spinal tap or PET scan to confirm you have Alzheimer’s. Although these tests are fairly accurate, the only way to diagnose the disease definitively is through an autopsy after death.


There are two big problems with this process. First, it can be expensive and invasive. Most insurance plans in the United States won’t reimburse tests for Alzheimer’s. Patients often pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets. Meanwhile, spinal taps can be scary and uncomfortable, and PET scans require the patient to stay perfectly still for up to 40 minutes. That’s difficult for anyone to do—but especially someone with Alzheimer’s.


Second, patients aren’t being tested for the disease until they start showing cognitive decline. The more we understand about Alzheimer’s, the clearer it becomes that the disease begins much earlier than we previously thought. Research suggests Alzheimer’s starts damaging the brain more than a decade before symptoms start showing. That’s probably when we need to start treating people to have the best shot at an effective drug.


This delay is a huge problem in the quest for a scientific breakthrough. It’s currently so difficult to find enough eligible patients for a clinical trial that it can take longer to enroll participants than to conduct the study. We need a better way of diagnosing Alzheimer’s—like a simple blood test or eye exam—before we’re able to slow the progression of the disease.  


It’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem. It’s hard to come up with a game changing new drug without a cheaper and less invasive way to diagnose patients earlier. But most people don’t want to find out if they have the disease earlier when there’s no way to treat it. The commercial market for Alzheimer’s diagnostics simply isn’t there. There’s promising research being done, but very few companies are looking at how to turn that research into a usable product.


That’s why my next investment in Alzheimer’s research is in a new fund called Diagnostics Accelerator. This project of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF) aims to accelerate bold new ideas for earlier and better diagnosis of the disease. Today I’m joining Leonard Lauder, ADDF, the Dolby family, the Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation, and other donors in committing more than $30 million to help launch Diagnostics Accelerator.


Diagnostics Accelerator is a venture philanthropy vehicle, which means it’s different from most funds. Investments from governments or charitable organizations are fantastic at generating new ideas and cutting-edge research—but they’re not always great at creating usable products, since no one stands to make a profit at the end of the day. Venture capital, on the other end of the spectrum, is more likely to develop a test that will actually reach patients, but its financial model favors projects that will earn big returns for investors.


Venture philanthropy splits the difference. It incentivizes a bold, risk-taking approach to research with an end goal of a real product for real patients. If any of the projects backed by Diagnostics Accelerator succeed, our share of the financial windfall goes right back into the fund.


My hope is that this investment builds a bridge from academic research to a reliable, affordable, and accessible diagnostic. I expect to see lots of new players come to the table, who have innovative new ideas but might not have previously had the resources to explore them. If you think you’re one of these bold thinkers, we want to hear your great ideas. I encourage you to apply for funding on the new Diagnostics Accelerator website here.


Imagine a world where diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease is as simple as getting your blood tested during your annual physical. Research suggests that future isn’t that far off, and Diagnostics Accelerator moves us one step closer.