New chemotherapies are urgently needed for the parasitic infections
of animals and for the tropical diseases of man.
Rational molecular design approaches to attempt to discover such products
require a massive investment of resources up-front of actual chemical
synthesis. However, such investment is justified, since chemical
synthesis itself is highly resource-consuming. The fact that few targets
have yet been validated to justify a rational approach is an argument only
to get on
and validate more. Not all the components of molecular design can yet
be done totally rationally, but this is not an argument
against applying this approach where it is possible. Absence of a
successful track record is inevitable for any newly emerging
technology. It is too early to draw conclusions about the relative costs
of
rational design versus empirical synthesis, since
the former is only now beginning to become reality and the latter is in
the middle of a (combinatorial) revolution. Similarly,
it is too soon to predict with certainty which of these two approaches
will prevail in the long run. However, they lend
themselves to parallel tracks, so both may well continue for the
foreseeable future. Current concerns about who would
develop successful discoveries are not reasons for stopping discovery
research. Indeed, a string of putative products held
at the discovery/development interface would be useful ammunition to
those
trying to develop partnerships such as a
Tropical Diseases R&D Alliance aimed at carrying out such work and
sharing costs.