tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post2525728422490509488..comments2024-03-25T09:11:17.877-07:00Comments on The Curious Wavefunction: What is the probability of a chemist discovering a drug? Is that the right question?Wavefunctionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-84011583358513544812015-04-24T13:02:08.645-07:002015-04-24T13:02:08.645-07:00You have to fully articulate the idea, including h...You have to fully articulate the idea, including how it would be reduced to practice. For instance, for a drug compound, you need to say, among other things, what disease it would be useful for treating (the utility) and how it could be made (the process). The "idea" also needs to be non-obvious (often difficult to define) based on the prior art, so just proposing a new analog does not necessarily qualify. You do not necessarily need to have made the compound, but you need to say how it could be made. The patent can be invalidated if it turns out that this method does not work, although "work" is defined very broadly. My point, however, was to emphasize the often misunderstood difference between inventorship (which has a legal definition) versus discovery, which has a scientific and business definition. I also found the statement that the patent system favors synthetic chemists baseless. Biologists, analytical chemists, physicians, drug metabolism experts, formulation scientists, and more can and are listed as inventors on drug company patents that, for instance, cover the discovery of new analytical or assay procedures, new biomoarkers, new active metabolites, and more, all of which contribute to the "discovery" of a drug. Even ***molecular modelers** are listed as inventors on compound patents when they are responsible for proposing a new type of analog (slight friendly dig, there). Granted, companies tend to file many more composition of matter patents than anything else, and granted, there are many issues with the patent system. We should remember that it was not designed as nor should it be viewed as a vehicle for recognition of achievements. There is, for instance, no such thing as a "lead inventor" or "corresponding inventor" as there is in scientific publications. You either are or you aren't an inventor, and not everyone qualifies for every patent, no matter how vital their contribution to the discovery process. In my experience, when it comes time to hand out the awards for a great "discovery", everyone lines up for their prize, and most everyone who has contributed in some way is recognized, just not with their name listed as an inventor. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-23569853871132778492015-04-24T11:27:04.365-07:002015-04-24T11:27:04.365-07:00According my understanding, "articulate the i...According my understanding, "articulate the idea" is not sufficient - it also need enablement by this person. We have enough peopble with brilliant ideas, especially afterwards and oftern in opposite direction over the time span in a team.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-43372924806798850942015-04-24T09:45:19.981-07:002015-04-24T09:45:19.981-07:00Under US patent law, inventions ARE ideas and inve...Under US patent law, inventions ARE ideas and inventors are the one(s) who articulate the idea for the first time or contribute to it in its final form. The same rules apply to all patents, not just drug patents. No, the patent law does not favor chemists, and certainly not because it is easier to measure the contribution of chemists than other scientists. For a composition of matter patent, the inventor(s) may or may not include the person who made the compound or the lead chemist, and I can tell you that sorting that out is not easy. Drug patents include composition of matter and other types, and clearly the former are going to be mostly chemists. The others, not so much. Invention should never be confused with discovery. A drug is "discovered" by a team but invented (usually) by a much smaller group. The two terms should not be used interchangeably. Sorry, but you're just way off base on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com