Grad Biotech Company Receives $2 Million to Study

By wpengine | October 29, 2002

A local biotechnology company founded by Cornell graduate students has been awarded a $2 million federal grant for computational cancer research.

The Ithaca-based company Gene Network Sciences (GNS) was founded two years ago to explore the applications of computer technology to biological systems. Since then it has produced the world’s largest simulation of a human cancer cell and hopes to apply this technology to streamlining the drug discovery process, currently a costly and time-consuming endeavor.

“We are currently focused on the genetic circuitry of the cell, and we want to use this information to test medicines by simulating the effect that drugs have on this complex biochemical circuitry,” said Colin Hill grad, co-founder and president of GNS and a Cornell graduate student in physics.

The current failure rate for a new drug is 80 percent and each drug can cost $700 to $800 million to develop, according to Hill.

“Simulation would allow us to identify the correct proteins and genes to be hit with a drug,” Hill said.

He further explained how testing drugs on a virtual cell could also be used to eliminate some drug candidates, leading to a lower failure rate.

“Our in-silico models have the potential to shave three to four years off the drug discovery process, resulting in a cost savings of tens of millions of dollars,” said Iya Khalil, Ph.D. ’00 in a GNS news release. Khalil is also a co-founder of GNS.

The grant, awarded by the federal government’s Advanced Technology Program (ATP), will be administered over the next three years and will enable the company to more comprehensively test its simulations against observations in the lab. The ATP gives annual grants to high risk, pioneering industries that have the potential for high returns.

“It’s remarkable that a student going after a physics Ph.D., which is a full time job in itself, is able to start his own biotech company at the same time,” said Prof. Steven Strogatz, theoretical and applied mechanics, a member of GNS’s scientific advisory board.

While understanding the nature of living systems has long been a primary pursuit of mainstream science, the novelty of GNS’s approach of simulating life on a computer has met with mixed response.

“A lot of people still think we’re crazy and that this can’t be done. There is the feeling that biological systems are not amenable to mathematical description. In the past, physics has ignored living systems because of their overwhelming complexity, but now we have chaos theory, statistical mechanics, and fast supercomputers to aid us. We also have much better data. There is no reason why we can’t start putting the pieces together,” Hill said.

Recent advances in biological research have yielded a wealth of information to scientists, but making sense of such large amounts of data can prove problematic.

“There is so much information coming out of biology experiments and the thinking is that computing can be applied to understanding what the data means. The question becomes which genes are connected to which and how,” Strogatz said.

The holistic approach of computer modeling could help scientists make sense of the human genetic code.

“It was hoped that the human genome sequence would let us cure all of these diseases but we still don’t know how these things work and interact as an integrated system. What’s needed is a framework to tie all of this data together so we can rapidly explore the multitude of data-driven hypotheses,” Hill said.

Hill hopes that his company, which integrates data from the human genome sequence and other genomic technologies into its models of biological systems, will provide just such a framework.

“The grant will be used primarily for our wet lab facilities where work is done with human cell lines and eventually primary human tissue to generate the data used to further refine and validate our simulation,” Hill said.

The ATP award, one of 40 awarded during this year’s competition, is the second major grant the company has received this year. Last month, GNS was awarded a $100,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health to further its colon cancer simulation, and the company has raised over $1.7 million from private investors, including $125,000 from the Cornell Big Red Venture Fund of the Johnson Graduate School of Management.

“It’s exciting that students can get involved so early on and that it’s happening right here in Ithaca,” Strogatz said.

Hill said he welcomes undergraduate involvement.

“These funds will help us make Ithaca a world leader in systems biology,” Hill said. “We are also looking for bright, committed interns who have interests in the areas of molecular biology, physics, or computer science.”

Archived article by Philip Lane

CIPAC Hosts Hinchey Speech

By wpengine October 30, 2002

Congress Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) spoke about Israel-American relations and his several experiences involving relations in the Middle East to a crowd of about 100 students in McGraw Hall yesterday. Cornell Israel Public Affairs Committee (CIPAC) sponsored the discussion. He described his view on the relationship between the United States and Israel by stating how both countries are “firm allies.” Especially in light of time spent in the Middle East, Hinchey said, “my commitment to Israel is very strong.” A strong proponent of maintaining Israeli strength, Hinchey sponsored legislation that would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and has recently supported a bill that would give an extra $200 million to Israel for the purpose of fighting terrorism. Hinchey described to the audience what he called his “most heart-wrenching experience in Congress,” when, during one of his visits to Israel, a bomb exploded inside a discotheque, resulting in several deaths. At the time, Hinchey was the highest ranking American official in the country, so he visited and was able to talk with some of the families of the victims. “It was a very sad and a very deeply moving experience,” he said. In order to deal with the threat of terrorism in Israel, Hinchey expressed his support of increasing the country’s economic and military strength. According to Hinchey, without a strong economic base, Israel cannot be strong militarily. Following a question from the audience concerning the tolerance of terrorist groups in Syria, Hinchey elaborated on the issue of terrorism in the entire Middle East. The establishment of terrorist groups and countries that provide them with aid are only symptoms of the problems, said Hinchey. “The fundamental problem is the situation involving Israel and Palestine,” he said. One of purposes of the bill Hinchey supported authorizing additional aid to Israel was to deal with countries that provide a safe haven for terrorists, such as Syria. Hinchey said that the U.S. has to work with such countries to combat terrorism. While the U.S. is not likely to go to war these countries over the issue, according to Hinchey, it must encourage the countries to make changes themselves. Since terrorist organizations are likely to reorganize somewhere else if dispersed in one country, as Al-Qaida did in Afghanistan, those advocating for peace must work to get to the root of the problem. If not, said Hinchey, the situation may only continue to worsen. Hinchey also spoke about his view on the peace process involving Israel and the Palestinian Authority. He said that he was once optimistic about a peace agreement, but has since become frustrated due to a lack of progress. “I can remember feeling really good about what was happening,” he said. Especially during the end of the Clinton Administrion, said Hinchey, there had been a feeling that there was groundwork for a settlement and they were on the verge of a resolution. “Unfortunately, [Yasser] Arafat didn’t have the courage to sign the agreement,” he said. He said that while he was initially optimistic about the Palestinians wanting an agreement, he has become disillusioned about their commitment, especially under Arafat’s leadership. “He can’t say ‘yes,’ and he won’t take ‘yes’ as an answer,” he said. Hinchey spoke about the current turmoil within the Palestinian authority as a source of frustration. On one side, he said, there are the hard-liners who believe that Arafat is not being strict enough. However, on the other end, he said, an increasing number of the Palestinian people, including some within the government, have developed a strong sentiment promoting an end to the conflict. According to Hinchey, there has been a movement from some Palestinians denouncing the recent suicide bombers. “My experience with them is that they are like most of us. They want peace,” Hinchey said. Hinchey addressed the option of new leadership within the Palestinian Authority and the possibility that under a different leadership more progress might be made. However, Hinchey said the U.S. should not dictate to the Palestinians who their leaders should be but America must try instead to work out an agreement and be careful to reach an arrangement that would not induce a negative reaction from Muslims in the region. Hinchey spoke about involvement in the peace process by past presidential administrations and how the Bush administration has “lapsed” in its commitment to the issue. He argued for a more consistent presence in the region. He said he believes that someone who has gained respect dealing with foreign affairs, representing the “power and prestige” of the U.S. government should become involved in bringing the two sides together. Another audience member, Josh Fulop ’04, questioned Hinchey’s disillusionment with Arafat. In December 2001, the House of Representatives passed a bill urging the Bush Administration to distance itself from Arafat and his organization. Hinchey voted against the bill. “Seeing everything that’s transpired since December 2001, would you be more inclined today than in December to vote for such a bill?” Fulop asked. Hinchey answered that he would not vote for such a bill because it would send a bad message to the world because it, in effect, “called upon the Administration to divorce itself from the Palestinian Authority.” “Despite all of my misgivings about the Palestinian organization, I don’t see the benefit of expressing our opinion that we should have nothing to do with the Palestinians,” Hinchey said. The question of the effect of a possible U.S. war against Iraq on Israel was raised by Alicia Amdur ’05. “What people are saying about [Deputy Secretary of Defense] Paul Wolfowitz [’65] is that he is pushing for a war in Iraq because he is very pro-Israel,” Amdur said. Hinchey disagreed that a war would be beneficial to Israel. “I think it would be disastrous for Israel in the sense of the potential destruction,” Hinchey said. He added that a unilateral attack would galvanize support for terrorist groups, especially Al-Qaida, in the Muslim would. Of the approximately 1 billion Muslims in the world, “tens of thousands” would choose to join the Al-Qaida movement. According to Hinchey, a war could possibly lead to a break up of the nation of Iraq, with Kurds wanting to establish a state of their own in the north and Shiites breaking off in the south. This would cause a disruption in the entire region. In addition, Saddam Hussein may be inclined to attempt to bring Israel into the war, probably by launching an attack in order to provoke Israel to retaliate. “He will claim that this is a war between the United States and Israel against the Muslim world,” HInchey said. This would create the “potential for chaos.” Complicating the situation is the lack of sympathy from the entire international community. “Much of the public opinion will not be with us. And, most of the public opinion will not be with Israel,” he added.Archived article by Mackenzie Damon
Collins Speaks About Women's Role in Society

By wpengine October 30, 2002

Gail Collins, the editorial page editor of the New York Times, presented the 2002 Daniel W. Kops ’39 Freedom of the Press Lecture. In a speech entitled “How Women Got Their Voice,” Collins discussed both her upcoming book on womens’ history in America and her current position at The Times. Collins first addressed the gender issues of American women of the 18th and 19th centuries. “Men and women lived very separate lives,” she said. “There was a separate sphere where women were supposed to stay. Well into the 19th century the idea of women speaking in public was strange.” Collins focused on women’s use of “poetry,” and “separate communities,” in order to be heard. She mentioned the women who “embraced women’s place in the home” in order to publish their work and travel extensively. “When I think about all these women in the past who had to be so sneaky and so brave just to get up and say what they think, it really knocks me out,” she said. She continued by speaking about her role at The New York Times, and the changes in her job after Sept. 11. “My job has been totally colored by the World Trade Center,” she said in her speech, referring to the thousands of letters that flooded The New York Times on and after Sept. 11. Collins said that she wanted to help others as The New York Times opinion pages are “a common circle for all the people who are the readership of this national and, in some ways, international paper.” Collins also addressed the role of the modern woman. “In the 20th century women are finally joining the community of men,” she said. “To me the 60’s were the first time women dared to say, ‘we are going to do these things because we want them for ourselves.'” She asserted that “today there is an expectation that women will go into the world, have a voice, and use it. It is not shocking for women to complain and demand change.” Collins concluded her lecture by answering questions from the audience. There was a discussion between Collins and various members of the audience on the role of African American women in American history. “Of the women who lectured to ‘promiscuous audiences’ there were very few black women. Black women resented that they were seen as ‘freed slaves’ even when their families had been free for generations and generations,” said Collins. Kops founded this annual lecture in order to educate the Cornell community on the freedom of the press. He himself was present at the lecture, along with his wife, Nancy. “I get a great deal of satisfaction particularly when we get a great audience like this tonight,” he said. Collins had worked as a columnist for New York Newsday, the New York Daily News and the Connecticut Business Journal, as well as senior editor for Connecticut Magazine, before taking on her role as the editorial page editor for The Times. The audience was extremely diverse, with varying reasons for attending the lecture. “I admire Gail Collins and this subject is close to my heart. She is a historical figure herself. She’s the first women to ever be the editorial page editor of the New York Times” said Prof. Joan Jacobs Brumberg, American studies. “I personally run a non-profit organization, ‘Glamour Girls,’ and I feel anything I can learn from a woman leader is worthwhile,” said Rachel Doyle ’05. Emma Colby ’06 said, “I came here to discover more about journalism and feminism.” “I love to speak at colleges,” said Collins, “and I do it whenever I have the opportunity.”Archived article by Elisabeth Becker