About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
Not Voodoo

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
Realizations in Biostatistics
ChemSpider Blog
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa

Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net

Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine

Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem

Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus

Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Vial Thirty-Three: One Up, One Down | Main | Best When Used By. . . »

June 6, 2006

Vial Thirty-Three Rides Again

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Well, I got my repeat experiment set up before leaving work today. I could think of one variable I hadn't controlled for head-to-head yet, so I set up an extra couple of vials for that one. I'll try to get them analyzed tomorrow afternoon or Thursday morning, depending on how busy they are downstairs.

Getting this experiment going was a different feeling than when I ran it that Saturday. I was very eager and nervous that day, because I'd just had potentially great results and was ready to verify them as quickly as I could. (I had no way of knowing that the instrument needed for that was going to be out of service for two weeks, naturally). Today's repeat had some nervousness to it, but it was more along the lines of dread than the earlier anticipation.

I'm worried now that what I saw the first time is some kind of artifact, caused by something I haven't been able to anticipate. It looked very orderly, very clean, and quite believable, in its spectacular way. But yesterday's data had a more familiar look to it. It's really quite rare to get experimental results that are totally unequivocal - so many of them are a mixed, partly inexplicable bag. "Tell me - yes or no!" the experimentalist shouts, and the reply comes back "Dunno. . .sort of. . .I think. . .but maybe not, y'know?"

So by those standards, the first experiment, clean though it looked, is the suspicious anomaly. Here's hoping I'm wrong about being wrong.

Comments (4) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Birth of an Idea


1. Dave on June 6, 2006 10:42 PM writes...

All of us who have spent significant time at the bench can relate.

Fingers crossed that your earlier results are reproduced...

Permalink to Comment

2. Steven Jens on June 6, 2006 11:07 PM writes...

If the more recent results had been the first results you saw, would you have said, "well, that direction isn't any good -- let's try something else"? Or would you have tried again, anyway?

I'll be especially interested to know that if you turn out to win.

Permalink to Comment

3. Derek Lowe on June 7, 2006 6:23 AM writes...

Steven, I've thought about that question, too, and it gives me the shakes. It depends on just how scattery the data appeared to be. This second run isn't too good-looking, with (for example) two identical controls give quite different numbers.

If things had been all over the place, I might have suspected that something had been messed up. But if they had been only medium-ugly, I probably would have assumed that I was looking at a noisy version of nothing. Which is a pretty common result. . .

Permalink to Comment

4. highlyreactive on June 7, 2006 5:24 PM writes...

Derek, all of these birth of an idea posts are really fascinating but it makes me feel like chemistry is more alchemy or voodoo than reproducible science even though it isn't.

Permalink to Comment


Remember Me?


Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

The Last Post
The GSK Layoffs Continue, By Proxy
The Move is Nigh
Another Alzheimer's IPO
Cutbacks at C&E News
Sanofi Pays to Get Back Into Oncology
An Irresponsible Statement About Curing Cancer
Oliver Sacks on Turning Back to Chemistry