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: derekb.lowe@gmail.com
Twitter: Dereklowe
I was talking with some folks about this just last night - looks like Exelixis has rounded up some more money by signing a revised deal with BMS. They've been having a rough time out there recently, so I'm glad that there's a lifeline available. More on this as things become clearer. . .
1. AlchemistOrganique on October 12, 2010 2:10 PM writes...
Just read the C&E News article online. OMG, is that Tarceva drawn on the hood sash? I'm assuming that was drawn for the publicity shot rather than representative of a current analog project!
I don't know why you are feeling so generous and sympathetic for the company...certainly it's always bad for individuals who get caught at no fault of their own.
Yet, Excelixis make promises, promises, promises yet don't come close to delivering uniqueness or value. They've taken millions in deal funding, not to return much to the partner companies. They keep pushing the same compounds, knocking on door after door, one company to another. You'd think after a while they'd get the message that the compounds simply don't look good enough to take them further.
The strongest survive; the weaker wither away (well normally, but not always).
In almost any non-greedy selection or optimization algorithm, certain non-optimal candidates must be maintained to prevent stagnation. You can set the bar arbitrarily high for what can or cannot be used, sure, but you get an exponential back off on actual results. It actually makes more sense to have variety than to have all the strongest set, which is exactly how natural selection works.
So your statement that the "strongest survive" is very suspect; the strongest are only strongest today, and even then it's hard to tell exactly what 'strongest" means. If the population as a whole wants to remain as fit as possible, it must have variety, especially some amount of variety below the watermark.
The "weaker" do not wither away; they serve as containers for variety for when the "strong" are the "weak", ie, when times change.
1. AlchemistOrganique on October 12, 2010 2:10 PM writes...
Just read the C&E News article online. OMG, is that Tarceva drawn on the hood sash? I'm assuming that was drawn for the publicity shot rather than representative of a current analog project!
Permalink to Comment2. watcher on October 12, 2010 7:24 PM writes...
I don't know why you are feeling so generous and sympathetic for the company...certainly it's always bad for individuals who get caught at no fault of their own.
Yet, Excelixis make promises, promises, promises yet don't come close to delivering uniqueness or value. They've taken millions in deal funding, not to return much to the partner companies. They keep pushing the same compounds, knocking on door after door, one company to another. You'd think after a while they'd get the message that the compounds simply don't look good enough to take them further.
The strongest survive; the weaker wither away (well normally, but not always).
Permalink to Comment3. Osaka on October 13, 2010 5:11 AM writes...
In almost any non-greedy selection or optimization algorithm, certain non-optimal candidates must be maintained to prevent stagnation. You can set the bar arbitrarily high for what can or cannot be used, sure, but you get an exponential back off on actual results. It actually makes more sense to have variety than to have all the strongest set, which is exactly how natural selection works.
So your statement that the "strongest survive" is very suspect; the strongest are only strongest today, and even then it's hard to tell exactly what 'strongest" means. If the population as a whole wants to remain as fit as possible, it must have variety, especially some amount of variety below the watermark.
The "weaker" do not wither away; they serve as containers for variety for when the "strong" are the "weak", ie, when times change.
Permalink to Comment4. Anonymous on October 13, 2010 7:26 AM writes...
Just heard King Pharma has been 'assimilated'. Yet another one bites the dust
Permalink to Comment5. Resistancei is futile! on October 13, 2010 8:33 AM writes...
Nooo!!! The Pfi-Borg strikes again!
Permalink to Comment