KGS, you are an idiot.

[Askance]

@Alex_Dubinsky

CLEARLY this is the exception that proves the rule.

That phrase. It does not mean what you think it means.
CLEARLY a exception proves the alleged rule isn’t a rule.

@WorldWideWords

These days it is often used sweepingly to justify an inconsistency. Those who use it seem to be saying that the existence of a case that doesn’t follow a rule proves the rule applies in all other cases and so is generally correct, notwithstanding the exception. This is nonsense, because the logical implication of finding that something doesn’t follow a rule is that there must be something wrong with the rule. As the old maxim has it, you need find only one white crow to disprove the rule that all crows are black.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

@WarmNPrickly

I think one of the reasons many drug companies avoid natural products is complexities in producing them. They are just as likely to find an effective drug by studying the trillions of compounds that the chemists can already make as the trillions of molecules found in nature. It is as much of a coincidence that the bark of the Yew tree produces a drug to fight breast cancer as some estrogen derivative. The difference is that the natural products are often next to impossible to make, but the hormone analogues have already been made.

Ah, yes, the drunk and the lightpost principle. It’s up there with Occham’s Razor as a fundamental precept of science.

You can argue the time delay was justifiable. (Personally, I’d say the time delays for all drugs are a bit much.) In the end, though, the moral of the story was that drug companies need exclusivity/monopoly/significant $$-making mechanisms to research natural compounds/treatments, and that we should look to ‘socialist’ government to do this research.

In fact, the 20 year delay can be said to demonstrate a weakness in government research rather than a disinclination toward researching natural/alternative treatments.

@Askance

That phrase. It does not mean what you think it means.

HA, I knew someone would start an argument about “exception that proves the rule.” Perhaps I didn’t use it 100% in line with the saying, but actually the phrase has a clear meaning. Yesterday when driving my car I ran across a sign that said, “After stop, right turns permitted on red.” It was an exception that reinforced the rule that in NYC, you cannot turn on red. If you read an article in the paper with the headline, “White Crow Found” you can assume that the vast majority of them are black.

[WarmNPrickly]

@Alex_Dubinsky

Ah, yes, the drunk and the lightpost principle. It’s up there with Occham’s Razor as a fundamental precept of science.

I’m not sure, but I think you are suggesting that drug research is hap hazard. It isn’t. Most drugs, in fact, are based on naturally occuring compounds. The Yew trea didn’t grow for the purpose of making Taxol. Taxol is just a random compound that happens to act against some enzyme/protien/active site that interferes with cancer growth. Nature is the one doing things hap hazardly. Once you find a compound that is active, you use combinatorial methods to make several thousand derivatives and test them all for activity. As in the case of Taxol, it is very unlikely that the natural product is the best one. Drug companies have huge stores of compounds derived from natural products that they take out every time a new target is identified. I can guarantee every herbal supplement you’ve ever taken is sitting their freezers.

You can argue the time delay was justifiable. (Personally, I’d say the time delays for all drugs are a bit much.) In the end, though, the moral of the story was that drug companies need exclusivity/monopoly/significant $$-making mechanisms to research natural compounds/treatments, and that we should look to ‘socialist’ government to do this research.

I agree that we need some oversite in drug research, but not so that the companies can’t make a profit. These companies are extremely necessary, and one of the few areas where the US dominates uncontested. We do need the government to offer grants in order to push research towards curing diseases that do not make a profit. We also need to offer grants to keep drug prices low.

In fact, the 20 year delay can be said to demonstrate a weakness in government research rather than a disinclination toward researching natural/alternative treatments.

There is nothing weak about the development of Taxol. There is no way, they could have marketed Taxol without a way to make it . It took the greatest minds in synthesis ten years to make in abysmal yields. Fifteen years later, chemists are still talking about the synthesis of Taxol. It takes up a chapter in one of my books.

The fact is, natural product synthesis has more of an Evil Kneivil mentallity than a Clara Barton. Some of the natural products are so difficult to make that the only real benefit is finding new synthetic strategies for molecules that are reasonable targets. If a large feedstock for a particular class of structures is not available, there is no feasible way to bring it to market. We got lucky and found one for Taxol.