I've been involved in another outbreak of the perennial debate about what kinds of compounds medicinal chemists should be making. I can summarize the way this usually goes:
Chemist A: "Look at all these ugly molecules! Why can't we institute some sort of "No-Suzuki-Coupling" rule for two days out of every week or something? Failing that, why doesn't everyone at least try to make things that look better from the start?"
Chemist B: "Nice thought - but the most potent molecules tend to be on the uglier end of the spectrum. And once you've made a single-digit nanomolar compound for the first time in a new project, it's impossible to walk away from it. It's almost like you get to choose: good physical properties, or good activity and selectivity."
Chemist A: "Don't look in these places if you don't want to find what's there. I'm tired of people making big insoluble monster compounds "just for SAR purposes". Because then some of them hit, and you're stuck with 'em."
Chemist B: "But I can't go give a project update and say that we found the most potent compound ever, but we're not going to follow up on it. And then spend the rest of the time telling everyone that we made a whole bunch of compounds with great properties, but hey, they have no activity. That's not going to do me (or anyone else) any good, right?"
Chemist A: "That's why you don't make the uglies in the first place, so you don't get put in that bind. Of course, what everyone says to do is to take that potent ugly compound and make it better, now that you've found it. Problem is, most of the time the things you do to make it "better" start to kill the activity. We'd be better off with fewer hot compounds, as long as the ones we had were decent."
And so it goes. This same debate has gone on in my other workplaces, too, and I believe that it's a general one across the industrial labs. Who's winning the argument at your shop?