Wolfram
Hazard to Others
Posts: 133
Registered: 13-10-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The Future..
Im doing a course of Bioinformatics i have realized that in the future research will be done in computers. Soon there will be no labjob any more exept
when you want to test if your results work.
If you want to make a medicine you take a the target protein and make the computer se if any of millions of compounds could work as a agonist or
antagonist on it.
Bioinformatics will be the motor of development in lifescience. Before I have headed for a Ph D in eucatyotic molecular genetics but maybee it would
be better to go for bioinformatics what do you think?
|
|
|
Proteios
Hazard to Others
Posts: 109
Registered: 7-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
scads of people use modeling, but only because is somewhat better than inspired guess work. Molecuar dynamics and the such like have a very poor
reputation in the science world.
The experiment is always king.
Experimental results are ALWAYS more credible than computer modeling.
|
|
|
Wolfram
Hazard to Others
Posts: 133
Registered: 13-10-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yes ofcourse.
Yes ofcourse. Could it be the other way?
"Molecular modeling is more reliable than reallife experiments"- Then I really would be surpriced..
But chemical models in computers are on stone age stadium. When programs and computers get good enough research could be done in computers first
becouse it will be much faster. Even if it will not be more reliable then reallife experiments.
|
|
|
Proteios
Hazard to Others
Posts: 109
Registered: 7-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
ive done lots of work with molecular dynamics. For simple aqueous solutions it gets things generally right, but still has significant problems.
Ive seen people battling with enzymes by MD. From a physical chemistry point of view, theirs is a lost cause. MD is just not that good:- not even
close!
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
