Rochester, NY (PRWEB) November 27, 2013
Rational Drug Design, which uses computers in designing new drug entities that bind with specific targets, did not resolve the productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. “The current target based drug design approach is incomplete because most of the drugs developed by structure guided approaches have been shown to have serious toxic side effects.” This is according to a study published on October 14, 2009 in the European Journal of Pharmacology (2).
Furthermore, Jack Scannell, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein who covers European pharma said, “Only a minority of the most innovative drugs had their origins in target-based drug discovery; 17 out of 50. And of these 17, two drugs were eventually approved for indications that were entirely different to those that were intended at the start of the target based search.” The article was published on March 28, 2012 on Forbes.com (3).
The problem, however, is not computers. There are definite benefits in computer-aided drug design. But, in rational drug design, computers only process chemical information. They do not process biological information. In rational drug design, computers are a wonderful tool, but they are only as good as the intuition of the scientists that enter the input and interpret the output. The CBCD believes that today, the limiting factor in pharmaceutical R&D, and the cause of the productivity crisis, is the intuition of these scientists.
Let’s quantify intuition with the following measure. An increase in intuition is any increase in the foresight of the scientists. Or, in simple terms, the more scientists can look into the future, the better the scientist’s intuition is. Another example: Take two scientists. The one who says to the other ten years after the fact, “you were right” has less foresight, and less intuition.
Computer Intuition enhances scientific intuition. That is, it incre
Copyright©2012 Vocus, Inc.
All rights reserved