On 9 Jan 2002 14:12:55 -0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>There is an interesting article by David Horrobin in Nature Biotechnology
>19, 1099-1020 (December 2001) with the title "Realism in drug
>discovery---could Cassandra be right?"
>>It starts out in pessimistic mood: "Any regular reader cannot avoid being
>impressed by the startling failure of the pharmaceutical research effort.
>Most of the top companies are not generating in-house the new products
>needed to sustain [their] rates of growth" [I've cut out quite a few words,
>but I don't think I've distorted the message].
>>The conclusion is more optimistic: "Genomics will deliver in the end", but
>there isn't actually much offered in the way of evidence to justify this
>optimism. Wishful thinking rules, as always.
Perhaps. However, the industry's investment in the SNP Consortium may
actually produce results.
>People in this news group interested in systems and complexity may quarrel
>with the word "startling": what's startling about it? It just confirms what
>we've been saying for a quarter of a century. But it's interesting to see
>that the idea that drug discovery companies are not going about their
>business in a way likely to lead to success may finally be reaching some of
>the people in a position to influence matters.
Elzi
