From: Ross A. Finlayson (raf@tiki-lounge.com)
Date: Sat Dec 30 2000 - 08:04:26 MST
Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de wrote:
> "Ross A. Finlayson" wrote:
> >
> > When I was a little kid, I remember assigning scientific rules to things that were
> > not correct. For example, I thought you could just string the letters of the
> > periodic table to get new compounds, without at the time knowing that the
>
> Actually, you would get some rather nifty results if you'd be willing to experiment
> a lot (mixing up random aliquots of a bunch random elements in a quartz reaction
> vessel, and popping it in an oven), and restrict yourself to just four PSE symbols.
>
> Modern variation of this, augmented with advances in analytics is combinatorial
> chemistry. Creating molecular libraries, brimming with diversity, and screen for
> a desired property.
>
> > compounds had structural reasons for their construction. I think kids have a
> > pretty good grasp of reality in terms of ghosts that don't exist or Santa Claus
> > that they are grounded in reality.
I could see why. I was thinking I could see how now to put the correct orbitals and
ions to actually make a compound from the elements in proper ratios, but it probably
wouldn't accomplish the task for which it was designed.
I think computer simulation of chemical combinatorics is already used and will be much
better in the future.
So maybe that is one way we learn, we learn in different contexts and then the
intermediate material that bridges the two.
About the computer simulation, if the compound reaction rules work correctly then very
large numbers of combinations could be tried in short order.
By copyright laws, you each have copyright on your own genes, so they may never be
patented by a foreign power. Only new genes may be patented, until they belong to
somebody. So, for example, a gene for a spider that allowed the harvesting of some
life-saving material might be able to be patented, but a cure for some disease that is a
mutation not present in humans is less patentable when used. Any use of gene structure
knowledge that already exists in humans belongs to them. Well, this has been a change
of subject.
Ross
-- Ross Andrew Finlayson Finlayson Consulting Ross at Tiki-Lounge: http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~raf/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:36 MST