and medicine out of nearly “separate boxes”, with not enough overlap and certainly
not with the same superimposed intensity as for chemistry and physics. Is the
different teaching culture the only reason?
4.1 What is the Best Way to Predict the Future?
Richard Feynman (1918–1988), Nobel Prize in Physics (1965), banjo player and
“expert” in opening safes during his time in Los Alamos during the war, was one of
the great, creative scientists of the last century. Like Hermann Staudinger, he liked
to step across scientific borders and like him, he also had to work in difficult times.
When asked, “what is the best way to predict the future, he smiled: “The best way to
predict the future is to invent it”. Logic and linear thinking is helpful but in addition
we need luck – and we have to catch it if it walks by.
4.2 Linear Thinking, Paradigm Shifts and Serendipity:
Science Is Not a One-Way Street
It seems to be indeed easier to develop synthetic polymers linearly into essential
materials than to guide them into pharmacy and pharmacology. The discovery of a
new, active drug is already a difficult task, and to “design a drug” is the next step in
sophistication. In 1984, Georges Jolles, (Rho ˆne-Poulenc Sante ´, Paris) published a
book based on the proceedings of the conference “Drug design: facts or fantasy”
[23]. In the “Introduction” he states:
The discovery of a new drug is indeed an extremely difficult task. Maybe it was imprudent
of us to adopt this shining expression ‘Drug Design’ from people who are really designers,
who design aeroplanes, cars, equipment: They know exactly what they are aiming for; they
are aware of most of the parameters involved in their project; they can calculate. The
crucial difference in drug research is that we do not dominate all parameters as far as we
have even identified them and, therefore, work under a serious handicap.
The expertise in materials science cannot be directly transferred into biomedical
materials, not even to talk about in vivo active drugs. The extremely high number
and the physiological complexity of cell types and tissue classes hardly allow a
logical, linear development: All we know is that we know exactly what we don’t
know. This is certainly the case for most serious diseases, e.g. AIDs, Alzheimer,
multiresistant microbes and cancer. It is thus not amazing that from about 20 new
drugs per year, on the average only one or two lead to a real advancement for
patients. Too often and too long the pharmaceutical industry has mainly looked for
drugs that could be developed fast (in 2 to 3 years) and could be planned linearly: a
perfect platform for the popular “me-too compounds”, which are just variations of
successful drugs (see “Editorial: A decade in drug discovery” [22]).
In this respect, it is important and really enjoyable to see that industry is again
showing growing interest in long-term research and in nanomedicine, with the aim
16
H. Ringsdorf
not with the same superimposed intensity as for chemistry and physics. Is the
different teaching culture the only reason?
4.1 What is the Best Way to Predict the Future?
Richard Feynman (1918–1988), Nobel Prize in Physics (1965), banjo player and
“expert” in opening safes during his time in Los Alamos during the war, was one of
the great, creative scientists of the last century. Like Hermann Staudinger, he liked
to step across scientific borders and like him, he also had to work in difficult times.
When asked, “what is the best way to predict the future, he smiled: “The best way to
predict the future is to invent it”. Logic and linear thinking is helpful but in addition
we need luck – and we have to catch it if it walks by.
4.2 Linear Thinking, Paradigm Shifts and Serendipity:
Science Is Not a One-Way Street
It seems to be indeed easier to develop synthetic polymers linearly into essential
materials than to guide them into pharmacy and pharmacology. The discovery of a
new, active drug is already a difficult task, and to “design a drug” is the next step in
sophistication. In 1984, Georges Jolles, (Rho ˆne-Poulenc Sante ´, Paris) published a
book based on the proceedings of the conference “Drug design: facts or fantasy”
[23]. In the “Introduction” he states:
The discovery of a new drug is indeed an extremely difficult task. Maybe it was imprudent
of us to adopt this shining expression ‘Drug Design’ from people who are really designers,
who design aeroplanes, cars, equipment: They know exactly what they are aiming for; they
are aware of most of the parameters involved in their project; they can calculate. The
crucial difference in drug research is that we do not dominate all parameters as far as we
have even identified them and, therefore, work under a serious handicap.
The expertise in materials science cannot be directly transferred into biomedical
materials, not even to talk about in vivo active drugs. The extremely high number
and the physiological complexity of cell types and tissue classes hardly allow a
logical, linear development: All we know is that we know exactly what we don’t
know. This is certainly the case for most serious diseases, e.g. AIDs, Alzheimer,
multiresistant microbes and cancer. It is thus not amazing that from about 20 new
drugs per year, on the average only one or two lead to a real advancement for
patients. Too often and too long the pharmaceutical industry has mainly looked for
drugs that could be developed fast (in 2 to 3 years) and could be planned linearly: a
perfect platform for the popular “me-too compounds”, which are just variations of
successful drugs (see “Editorial: A decade in drug discovery” [22]).
In this respect, it is important and really enjoyable to see that industry is again
showing growing interest in long-term research and in nanomedicine, with the aim
16
H. Ringsdorf