Neuroscientist Ben Barres has died

davidkuhta 8 years ago |

> “If you took the Barres lab out of the field of glial studies, there would be no field,” Raff said.

The highest of compliments. RIP

QAPereo 8 years ago | |

Prior to his insights, glia were just thought to be little more than structural support and insulation for neurons. The truth of course is so much more interesting.

Baruch dayan emet.

jdpigeon 8 years ago |

In addition to being an incredibly productive, paradigm-shifting scientist, Dr. Barres was also honest and down to earth about the realities of the field. I'd recommend anyone going in to any type of graduate study to read his essay on how to choose na graduate advisor: http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273(13)00907-0

GuiA 8 years ago |

I quit academia, frustrated at how bureaucratic it was and how impossible it seemed to become a Great Scientist. Very inspiring to read about the lives of those who make it against all odds.

May the work and memory of Ben Barres carry the next generations of scientists.

melling 8 years ago |

“died on Dec. 27, 20 months after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He was 63.”

A form of cancer where we have made almost zero progress. What’s it going to take to get more research?

It has already been 10 years: https://www.cmu.edu/randyslecture/

ekianjo 8 years ago | |

Problem is also that it is not easy to diagnose in early stages, so you end up with most patients diagnosed in stage 4.

Gatsky 8 years ago | |

It's a difficult problem etc etc

The real answer is that the life sciences are currently in a medieval phase. It's like doing physics without algebra or calculus. We should certainly not expect any regular progress. It is extraordinarily inefficient.

pvaldes 8 years ago | | |

I understand what you are trying to say. Yes. This is a sort of a dark age for all science related. A few well supported islands in an ocean of hostile politics

hprotagonist 8 years ago | |

it’s not like people aren’t trying. it’s just a real bastard of a disease.

melling 8 years ago | | |

I didn’t say people weren’t trying. I was asking for more research. Pancreatic cancer is not generously funded. Most would argue that it’s underfunded.

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-doe...

https://www.cancer.org/research/currently-funded-cancer-rese...

gone35 8 years ago | | |

It's not just funding.

For one, the dynamics of the known molecular pathways involved are complex [1], and so far non-trivial to manipulate.

Furthermore, even with an actionable mechanism, targeting the tumor itself is highly non-trivial, due to physiology alone. (See e.g. [2]).

[1] http://www.jcancer.org/v07p1497.htm

[2] http://www.nature.com/articles/nrclinonc.2016.119

leemailll 8 years ago |

The best know transgender scientist