This is a clear case of an apples and oranges comparison by Dr. Grove. In addition to the points raised by PZ and Derek I’d add the reliability question. It is one thing to design a semiconductor that can have severe problems without harming people and designing drugs that cure the sick without harming them. I mean there is no reset button on a human to give us a clean retry after the new drug crashes the humans life. Any engineer who thinks developing safe and effective drugs can be improved as easily as semiconductor processes is either lacking an understanding of biology and pharmacology or fooling themselves about what they know. Dr. Grove you are embarrassing to a rational thinking engineer like myself. Keep in mind Expertise is real and it matters and it sure seems that chemical engineer Andy Grove has no expertise in pharmacology, biology or medicine.
UPDATES: Oops, I needed to change Mr. to Dr. because he has a doctorate in chemical engineering.
Tyler raises some good points from a CS/Math perspective.
The Slashdot post has some interesting comments.
The Pharma Marketing Blog has a post with an industry insider perspective.
Most pertinent is the Variable Fragment blog’s post, the writer has worked in process development at Intel and now works in biotechnology. What more can you ask for, here’s someone with expertise in both areas.
Finally for silliest comment the award goes to TechNudge.net for this bit of ridiculous commentary.
Andy, maybe if researchers would stop looking for non-existent proof of serious man-made global warming theyd have a few minutes to get on with diseases. But thats not where the funding is.
I mean really, this fool thinks there is but one type of research and researcher so, just re-task them from climate science to pharmacology. I guess he’d like to call on the Geek Squad for all his medical needs too.