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 : Pharmacopeia, Inc. (ACCL) (Prev: PCOP) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Susan Rodney who wrote (42)	12/2/1997 10:40:00 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 179

Susan: Sorry to see you go. I think that we all came to the same conclusion that James and the "executive" came to. A "request" to stop participating is hardly an act of censorship. Is this reflective of spin that we will see on future IR communications from PCOP? Please clarify why you could not simply deny the request. How about hosting a half-day tutorial at PCOP for certain SI participants and shareholders? Something informal, rolling a few scientists and managers through for brief presentations, so that no big chunk of time would be required from any one individual? Cheers! Rick

To: Susan Rodney who wrote (42)	12/2/1997 1:51:00 PM
From: James Silverman	Respond to of 179

Sue, Congratulations on the nice looking deal with BMY! I'll echo Rick's sentiments and add that I would love to see what he suggests happen re: an informal meeting.

To: Susan Rodney who wrote (42)	2/6/1998 12:39:00 AM
From: Dr. Voodoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 179

Dear Susan and others on this thread, I understand your feelings about being censored from talking about your company on this thread. I too work for a biotech company and would love to discuss with people the work that we do. Whereas, when I began reading your posts I immediately knew that you would not be able to post for long. Personally as a scientist I will not post on any forum related to the company that I work for. For the simple reason that I would not like to give the appearance* that I intended in anyway to misrepresent myself or my company.* Please do not take offense to this and I think that you did an a great service to this thread by contributing to the discussion. It is unfortunate that we live in the shareholder lawsuit happy world that we live in :( To folks on this thread: I am a combinatorial chemist and have been working in this field for the past 3 years. I do not work for ArQule or any other big combichem company. I'm still catching up on posts and getting the details and I would love to contribute to the discussion. My $.02 PCOP/MSIM MONSTER DEAL! Definitely makes them a major, major player in the entire combichem area. If you believe their will only be 4 or 5 combichem co's left, PCOP will have to be one of them. As a scientist, I wonder about the ramifications, but only a little. I don't think that it will crush anyone, only move PCOP further in the direction that drug discovery is headed. Computer technology is changing this industry in DRAMATIC ways, bioinformatics, genomics, etc. Anybody seriously trying to discover drugs is well on their way to having already acquired the same things. Combinatorial chemistry is not going to be some novel thing that people at combinatorial chemistry companies/groups do. It will soon totally change the way drugs are discovered and just be another tool in the Med. Chemists belt to go make drugs. You cannot patent combinatorial chemistry it's too obvious. You can patent cool technology that helps you find and make drugs faster than your competition. Robots, informatics, modelling software, diversity analysis are all the things that everbody in this field has. I'll also say this cause it bugged me.(At the risk of ticking you nice folks off:-)). It doesn't matter if you have a nanomolar potent compound if the protein that you are trying to stick to is at micromolar concentration in a cell. There is lots and lots to drug discovery besides finding leads(admittedly, a great start). Also, just remember that there are alot of drugs out there today that were rationally designed. What I'd really like to see is proof of principle that combinatorial chemistry puts more drugs in the clinic faster --time will tell-- logic says it will. Does anyone know how many of the leads they have discovered have advanced into preclincal or clinical candidates? I know that they outlicense the leads but I would think that this would be something they would want to tout. I looked but couldn't find it on their website.