Though, really, the scientific breakthroughs are almost always about understanding things that were already there.

Yes I'll concede that, if only in the use of old ideas to put forth new ones. It depends on the area for example my girlfriend will be doing a honours project next year where she will be in effect training a enzyme to create its own inhibitor by feeding it vaious chemicals.

There are about only 30 journal articles on the area the project is in to date and some of the molecules the enzyme will produce are likely to have never been seen before. None of these molecules produced from the enzyme will exist in nature either.

If thats not new I don't know what is.

"Frangipanis on cars. AUSTRALIA SAYS NO."

The scientists work with natural elements by mixing them together and seeing what happens. That's old, and has been for as long as there have been scientists.

What happens is, in Pepster's girlfriend's case, an enzyme that didnt' exist in nature before. That's a new thing. And hats off to Pepster's girlfriend, while I'm at it!

Then some philosophers come about and start making snide comments. And the scientists get upset and defensive. That's old, and has been there for as long as there have been scientiests. And philosophers

So the only new thing is the enzyme, really. Although, in case of people who need this enzyme to live, that's plenty!

Friends don't let friends take up scrapbooking!

Actually its an enzyme associated with beast cancer, so it exists in nature. You know where

The chemistry being performed is new.

"Frangipanis on cars. AUSTRALIA SAYS NO."

Cross posted from the "Thud!" thread

Seems PTerry has issues with The Da Vinci Code also

See the review - which WILL of course contain spoilers - you have been warned! here

Errr... beast cancer? Surely its breast.

Doesnt that mean that your girlfriend might, and i say might, find a cure for cancer?

Go her!

Yeah breast, my bad. Sorry rinso she isn't curing your disease

Contribute to one potentially, yes.

Her project involves the structure determination of compound that the enzyme has essentially "clicked" together i.e. the reagents get so close they react often in surprising and unfavorable ways. The process is fiddly and generates 10-100's of different compounds at a time. The pro's are that there is a hypothesized carbon skeleton structure for a inhibitor; and by feeding the enzyme variations of a molecule with this structure and performing a little chemistry on the side their is the potential to get the enzyme to make its own best inhibitor. Hence potential lead compound(s) for further development as a drug.

As to cancer cures, well there are likely to be several in trial now that potentially could be broad cancer cures. In blind testing so to speak, as only 50% of trial patients get the real drug the other 50% get placebos*. The reason for placebos is to attempt to remove the placebo effect, well that’s not exactly clear basically people can convince themselves they are getting better if they think they are getting a cure^ despite it just being sugar pills. Apparently the actual figure of people getting better/or just feeling better from placebos is rather sobering.

Current research into cancer is now tending to be targeting specific gene products, i.e. proteins associated with the disease state. This has the potential to simplfy clinical trial and shorten the time it takes to get a drug to market (15-30 yrs). The flipside to this is that these drugs may only work on people expressing certain genes.

*Note the doctors administering the experimental drugs don't know which.

^The placebo is perhaps something that doctors should consider with antibiotics and patients who demand them willy nilly even if they don’t need them. What is a antibiotic going to do to a virus after all, nothing they only kill bacteria.

"Frangipanis on cars. AUSTRALIA SAYS NO."