3 ms·
> if we had an ML that could generate molecules that cure diseases that would pass FDA approval, I wouldn't really care if scientists couldn't explain the under
by hammock 2y ago
> if we had an ML that could generate molecules that cure diseases that would pass FDA approval, I wouldn't really care if scientists couldn't explain the underlying principles
It’s actually required as part of the submission for FDA approval that you posit a specific Mechanism of Action for why your drug works the way it does. You can’t get approval without it
- jdietrich 2y agoA substantial proportion of FDA-approved drugs have an unknown mechanism of action - we can handwave about protein interactions, but we have no useful insight into how they actually work. Drug discovery is bureaucratically rigid, but scientifically haphazard.
- dekhn 2y agoHow much do you believe that the MoA actually matches what is happening in the underlying reality of a disease and its treatment? Vioxx is a nice example of a molecule that got all the way to large-scale deployment before being taken off the market for side effects that were known. Only a decade before that, I saw a very proud pharma scientist explaining their "mechanism of action" for vioxx, which was completely wrong.