Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : T/FIF, a New Plateau -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jayhawk969 who wrote (35)	3/5/2000 11:18:00 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2243

J.D.: >> Are we 12 years away from viable compounds? << No. Genomics (and proteomics) are currently defining new targets at "warp speed", when compared to traditional methods. However, we shouldn't underestimate the challenge in what MLNM has committed to doing for Bayer et al. They have committed to finding a huge number of targets. This requires a big push on the learning curve, and, yes, 12 years is a decent estimate of when the results of "a Cyphergen" will begin to impact medicine, big-time. Rick

To: jayhawk969 who wrote (35)	3/5/2000 2:18:00 PM
From: Torben Noerup Nielsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2243

J.D., Barring some completely unforeseen advance in computational science, there's a long way to go before we'll be able to really understand proteins. Right now, we're still a long ways from determining the structure of any reasonably sized protein based on the gene sequence. And we have to move past that and on to determining - in advance - how making even small changes to a single one would change it's interaction with all the rest. It's staggering. Mere somatic gene modification is an easy task in comparison. 20-40 years for this one? Thanks, Torben