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 : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (2329)	12/17/2000 10:56:45 PM
From: keokalani'nui	Respond to of 52153

OT, Sorry.... A Mathematician, a Biologist and a Physicist are sitting in a street cafe watching people going in and coming out of the house on the other side of the street. First they see two people going into the house. Time passes. After a while they notice three persons coming out of the house. The Physicist: "The measurement wasn't accurate." The Biologist: "They have reproduced". The Mathematician: "If now exactly one person enters the house then it will be empty again."

To: Biomaven who wrote (2329)	12/18/2000 12:20:59 AM
From: Pseudo Biologist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Good points Peter, that Eric Lander is said to agree with the smaller number of genes should be taken seriously, however. Software to recognize genes from full genomes is actually pretty good these days, not that it has been used in many challenging cases (fly, worm, ...; bacteria don't count here as "challenging"). Gene function, of course, is quite another story. FWIW, Venter is Time's "Scientist of the Year" and one of a handful of few runners-up to "W" for "Person of the Year" time.com and back to topic from the Time article: But that's just the start. By looking at the genome as a whole, scientists can begin addressing broader questions about who we are and how we got here. They're learning, for example, that humans have far fewer genes than the 100,000 to 140,000 scientists believed as recently as last summer. The real count, says Celera geneticist Mani Subramanian, turns out to be more like 30,000 or 35,000, a number that seems shockingly low to many scientists. "We think we're superior beings," he says. "But we have the same number of genes as a plant." 30,000, coincidentally, is the number of royalty-bearing licenses handed by INCY -g- Last Of course this begs the question of just how much any "bare" gene patent (no function known) is going to be worth anyhow. This is the $64B question, part of which will be answered in the courts, I am afraid. Any leading patent law firms thinking of going public? -g- PB