4 ms·
>Use computer models first as much as possible Are we not doing this already? I would assume this is even cheaper than producing the thing and testing it. And
by foobar33333 5y ago
>Use computer models first as much as possible
Are we not doing this already? I would assume this is even cheaper than producing the thing and testing it. And I'm not sure how confident I would be with computer models since we don't know a whole lot about how biology works enough to simulate it (given the simulation would mostly be trying to replicate previous potentially flawed studies)
- nceqs3 5y agoYou are correct, if you could build a computer model that could even somewhat predict the efficacy of a drug you would instantly become the wealthiest person in the world.
- foobar33333 5y agoI imagine the only real way to do such a thing would be to simulate physics on an atomic level and have a perfect atomic map of the body. Which we are no where near achieving yet. But once we have that sorted, all kinds of incredible simulations could be done.
- refurb 5y agoYou would need to do that, but not just for the target in question but the entire human body - there are so many feedback loops and mechanisms in the body to counter whatever your trying to do. Add on top toxicity and that’s why biology is so hard. Reminds me of the story of Lyrica. Logic was it targeted GABA receptors - made sense too since it looked very similar to GABA itself. Sweet! And it had the same effect as a GABA agonist would. Pretty god damn smart people thought that one up! Then a few years after approval someone figured out it actually worked on glutamate receptors. Complete luck that it looked like GABA, behaved like a GABA agonist. It just didn’t work that way at all though.