Talk:Drug design
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Drug design is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance for this Project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.. |
|||
This should be summarized somewhere, presumably at medication. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard001 (talk • contribs) 09:14, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Rational or not?
So is rational drug design the same as drug design? --Galaxiaad 07:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think the historical non-rational part is assigned to Serendipity. The rational design process uses more principles from rational choice theory, like rational ignorance, and bounded rationality. This allows in principle to make more rational progress than just finding things via Serendipity.
- JKW 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- But wouldn't that be drug discovery, not drug design? Or am I just being pedantic? --Galaxiaad 22:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am confused since one of the first sentences there contains discovered and/or designed. The same drug discovery article contains already a section for Screening and Design, which sounds very similar to Drug Discovery Hit to Lead. So, I think you have highlighted some inconsistencies. In my opinion you should suggest a cleanup and/or a merge for those articles and some of the cross-linked articles mentioned, too. For example mentiones pre-clinical development that some goals are the development of a new drug, so how many articles do we really need to explain the same thing? I think a clearer definition and some pictures explaining a drug development pipeline are unavoidable. JKW 23:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- But wouldn't that be drug discovery, not drug design? Or am I just being pedantic? --Galaxiaad 22:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge of molecular modification here
This merge proposal was made in May, but there has been no discussion here. I support the merge. --Bduke 02:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not that sure not every "molecular modification" is of drugs but that article talks only about drugs, it has a very very vague title name! it could apply to the petrolchemical industry aor to biology. I think this article should have a main, further or for tag linking to that and vice versa --Squidonius (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge of Computer-assisted drug design here
This new article was created as one sentence and then proposed for speedy deletion. I removed the deletion tag and added context and more material. Nevertheless, we do not need this article. More details of the computer methods used in drug design should be added here and the article made a redirect. --Bduke 02:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Concur It is not my area yet I am 100% certain they need to merge. Interstingly, this is not the only computer-dependant Process X article where you cannot really do Process X without a computer, mathematical biology had in fact a similar merge issue. --Squidonius (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
