jm68 at kimbark.uchicago.edu (James R. Mensch Jr.) writes:
>Well, it was ironic but unintended. Seems the news system somehow ate my
>text.
Form:
Yes: we reprogrammed the news system so that it mangles all messages
which don't contain any biochemistry. We're currently trying to fix
the bug which let your second posting through. Thanks for your
fascinating comments, nevertheless.
Substance:
Kacser and Acerenza have recently published a `Universal method for
achieving increases in metabolite production' [Eur. J. Biochem.
216:361-367 (1993)]. So that's that, then. Better find a different
field, folks. Of course, you might like to air any misgivings about
the title, or indeed the rest of the paper.
[Form:
I think this would be the appropriate forum. Several people have
complained about a lack of science on this board, if not a lack of
material. Certainly in comparison with the computing boards, it is
unnaturally quiet. Even people who program for a living seem more
willing to post information about (or even fragments of) their work
than us supposedly `true academics'. Pre-publication work is
undoubedly a sensitive issue --- but there's no reason why we can't
discuss published material. Some people have suggested that they
would post material if btk-mca was a genuinely citable source. As
far as I can see, there are no serious arguments about whether you
can cite net.postings. They are multiply archived, publically
accessible. So let's come up with a new reference format (LaTeX? :-)
and argue it out with the editors. Perhaps some of the people out
there who *are* editors would like to let us know what they think.]
Substance:
Personally, I feel the paper presents a fairly general but possibly
not truly universal method. Although the explanation is relatively
simple, and the conceptual operations involved reasonably
straightforward, I am not yet conviced that a straightforward
implementation would be feasable either computationally or
experimentally. And as it looks as if this is just a systematic
application of the branchpoint theorem, doesn't this raise problems
with bimolecular reactions? (No, I didn't come up with that myself
--- Herbert (Sauro) pointed it out to me.) In fact it seems to me
that as more and more computerized optimization problems are being
solved with the so-called `genetic algorithms', we might as well
concede the point and accept that repeated rounds of mutation and
selection are as good as we are going to get as regards a truly
universal method --- even if we make an effective shortcut by
simulating a few million years of evolution by computer before
molecular intervention to bring the organisms `up to date'.
... John Woods
--
"
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit (Virgil)
[approx] Tr: The time may come when we will look back on these days and laugh
"
