David Fell wrote:
>>There is no compelling
>evidence that other recent tools - combinatorial chemistry and high
>throughput screening - are yet leading to higher productivity.
True. However, in my negative way I have tended to think of combinatorial
chemistry as just a buzzword meaning let's do it in the same old mindless
way (a lot more mindless, actually) but using machines to do it orders of
magnitude faster. High throughput screening seems to be a development of
the same sort of thing: let's not even bother to look at the results; let's
make a machine to do it for us.
Is this too negative? Is there any evidence that combinatorial chemistry
has ever led to higher productivity -- even in one single instance?
athel
--
Athel Cornish-Bowden
athel at ibsm.cnrs-mrs.frhttp://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/homepage.htm
---
