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 (5362)	1/9/2002 10:05:05 AM
From: quidditch	Respond to of 52153

Thanks for the thoughtful response, with which I agree in large part. You said, <There's a clear push towards trying to perform biology in silico rather than in vitro. As we get a better and better understanding of fundamental biological processes, so software simulations of them will grow in power and predictive capacity. But there are still huge fundamental obstacles to being able to do this effectively....As you move from genomics to the clinic the impact of bioinformatics on the drug development process declines.> I think that this is the heart of it. Even if something like VRTX's drug design capabilities built on ABSC platforms do show advances, and can for example design receptor/host site interfaces, can the designs be transferred to a molecule in vitro, will the "designed" molecule work in vitro, if the molecule works in vitro, will it have the intended, unintended, or collateral effects, prompting unanticipated biological and chemical reactions? Fascinating stuff. If the software/predictive capabilities become too accurate, we will be looking at Gene Wilder in the lab with more than lightning investing his beakers. By the remote way, any word on Festo? I've been reading a bit of the en banc decision and article you posted. quid