Some one said to me that biology and medicine have not really changed in the past 30 years. Is that true? Has biology and medicine been stagnated compared to engineering, computers and technology?
Not much changed with biology and medicine in the past 30 years.
I know when comes to cancer it been kinda of stagnated.
I’m neither biologist nor doctor, but CRISPR gene editing technology is considerably less than 30 years old. It was first patented in 2012 and won the Nobel in Chemistry in 2020.
What you think you know is wrong,
According to the American Cancer Society, the overall cancer death rate fell 32% from 1991 to 2019.
1994: BRCA1 Tumor Suppressor Gene Cloning
1995: BRCA2 Tumor Suppressor Gene Cloning
1996: Anastrozole
1997: Rituximab
1998: Trastuzumab
2001: Imatinib Mesylate
2006: Gardasil
2009: Cervarix
2010: The First Human Cancer Treatment Vaccine
2011: Ipilimumab
2013: Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine (T-DM1)
2014: Pembrolizumab
2015: Talimogene Laherparepvec
2017: CAR T-Cell Therapies
2017: Tumor-Agnostic Approval for Pembrolizumab
2017: Genomic Profiling Tests
2018: Larotrectinib
Sorry, that is so completely wrong as to be absurd. In the last 30 years advances in biology and related fields have moved at a pace that puts Moore’s law to shame.
Just one simple example, because this article has a nice graph. In 20 years the cost of sequencing a complete human genome went from $100,000,000 to $1,000.
CRISPR genome editing hasn’t quite made it into the practice of medicine in a big way yet, but it certainly offers the potential for curing otherwise only barely manageable genetic conditions.
Oncology has what is probably the most exceptional advances with cancers that were barely treatable thirty years ago now managed or completely remediated with modern treatments today/. Cancer, as a general cause of death, is still a major problem, but both the quality of life and eventual outcomes are far better than they were three decades ago. The o.p.’s assertion that “I know when comes to cancer it been kinda of stagnated,” is radically incorrect.
Advanced in cardiology are not quite as radical and we’re still waiting for that perfect artificial heart, but advances have been significant and we are on the cusp of not only animal-hybrid hearts but other organs. It it entirely possible that within a generation that heart, kidney, pancreas, and liver transplant organs could come from pigs rather than human donors. It is also within reach that synthetic blood could be produced at scale, eliminating dependence upon blood donations.
As for biology in general, the advances that have been made in the myriad of different fields within biology are so radical that to argue that we have stagnated at the level of circa 1995 is absurd. Aside from the practical and medical advances, our understanding of biological systems and processes has developed in a far more expansive and practiucal way than any other area of science. The ability to produce mRNA vaccines is just one of manifold expressions of those advances.
This is not to say that there are many areas of biology and medication that do not beg further advances, particularly in regard to metabolic and idiopathic inflammatory syndromes, as well as in infectious disease and allergy/immunology, but medical science has advanced, and promises future innovations, far exceeding those in the non-biological material and physical sciences.
Stranger
Maybe he means that new cancer therapies are simply newer, better versions of the types of treatments that have been available since the '90s. On the other hand, digital tech is still based on the transistor, which was first proposed in 1926 and the first actual transistor was made in 1947.
Some advances in medicine in the last 30 years:
mRNA vaccines
HPV vaccine
shingles vaccines
RSV vaccine
HIV drugs that make it possible to live a normal life with the infection
stem cell therapy
artificial organs
a new class of antibiotics (oxepanoprolinamides)
a potential cure for sickle cell disease
semaglutide medications for obesity
a blood test for Alheimer’s disease
The OP’s information is so wrong that it’s not even wrong. What has happened is that a lot of medical tech has advanced beyond the understanding of laymen, even at the basic level.
Once it becomes advanced enough that it looks like magic, well … one bit of magic looks a lot like another. Even if they’re very very different is scale, scope, and tech under the hood.
That’s not true, either. I’m pretty sure that practical Immunotherapy is less than 30 years old.
I think the OP is confusing “advances in biology and medicine” and “increased life expectancy”. After the great success of the low hanging fruit* in extending our average lifespans the progress in this filed has indeed stagnated, in some places like the USA it has even gone into reverse some years, for instance during the pandemic and WRT “deaths of despair”.
The great advances in medicine and biology today help each fewer and fewer individuals, thus the average life expectancy does not rise anymore. For the individuals afected it is great news, for the average citizen it looks like stagnation. Scientifically, it is not. Societally, it superficially seems so.
Expecting something like Moore’s Law to apply to our longevity is foolish, and I am afraid that is what the OP would like to see. Sorry, it will not happen.
* By this I mean mainly washing your hands, sanitation, vaccines, sterilization, anesthetics, antibiotics… the things that now, in retrospect, look easy. Just to be clear: they were not easy.
The thing with life expectancy is, if there’s one cause of death that overwhelmingly kills individuals long before anything else would, then there’s a lot of selective pressure for the organism to evolve ways to avoid that cause of death, but if there’s a cause of death that usually strikes later than other causes of death, there’s almost no pressure on that. What this means is that, typically, most causes of death end up striking at around the same time (in humans, typically somewhere around the 70s or 80s). And what that means is that, even if you were to completely eliminate one common cause of death, there’d be several other things right around the corner, and so you’d see very little change in total life expectancy.
Even as far back as the time of King Soloman, “the span of man is threescore years and ten, or fourscore if he be strong”. We haven’t made much progress on life expectancy in the past 30 years because we’ve never made much progress on it.
What has changed, though, is quality of life. As people say, 70 is the new 50. People might not have more time than they used to, but they can make good use of more of that time.
Also, I’m pretty sure there wasn’t a COVID-19 vaccine in particular back then.
Someone said to me that the Some one cited in the OP is an ass. Here’s a rundown of significant advances just in the past year.
Yes, even a small increase in mortality to the young (and gun deaths, auto deaths, and opiate deaths have all increased significantly among young adults in the us since the onset of the pandemic) will drag down a nation’s average lifespan. And covid has also directly decreased the expected lifespan of older people.
But none of those reflect lack of development in healthcare or biology.
Indeed, I should have mentioned this, must have been too obvious to me. It is highly significant: we may not live much longer on average, but we live much better lifes, particularly in old age.
On an unrelated note, was Viagra available thirty years ago?
IDK, I would not have needed it then 
In ST IV, when Chekov gets a bimp on the noggin and gets taken to the hospital, McCoy is furious about 20th century savages working on him,. In 1986, I thought that was incredibly rude. We’re not that bad! They weren’t going to put leeches on him or anything. We had progressed beyond stone knives and bearskins,
Now, in 2024, not only wouldn’t I want a 1986 doctor working on me, I wouldn’t want a 1994 doctor either! There have been a lot of improvements in medicine!
Nope. Patented in 1996, approved for use for erectile dysfunction by the U.S. FDA in 1998.