|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Pharmacology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Somebody who really knows all about QSAR and similar bits of alphabet soup could add to this article. -- Marj Tiefert, Friday, May 17, 2002
Marj, i´ve read the article and maybe we can improve it. There is a "term" coined in the scientific literature called Virtual HTS, e. g.: testing all the library members against its molecular target (a enzyme or a membran protein in most of the cases) in a computer, before the synthesis. Many things in the Combinatorial media are changing, specially the quantity of members in a comb. library, that is decreasing. What do you think about it? --Cedric.graebin 16:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Truth or fiction? Do we care?
Here is the text of a POV edit I am removing from the article. Please comment. If majority opinion supports inclusion, then it will get put back into the text.
- The first publication of a combinatorial library was by G. Pieczenik in 1987, with the publication of his foreign patent filings of the US patent 5,866,363 filed in 1985 with a disclosure document in 1983. http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/archive/g_pieczenik.html. Pieczenik worked with Bruce Merrifield and Fred Sanger, among other Nobel laureates. A. Furka had a notarized copy of his idea of making mixed combinatorial libraries in 1982.http://www.chem.elte.hu/departments/szerves/szerves/Furka/ConcealedHTML.htm
- Remove: ~K 04:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remove in part, reduce level of detail: From the tone, it sounds like the point of the Furka note is to cast aspersions on the originality of others cited, or at the outside extreme some conspiracy theory. Really need something more than just an interview with the person to consider including this. Notarized ideas aren't how science works. Regardless, need to keep claims and dates of originality on equal footing--everyone has ideas and preliminary/promising result leads long before an actual publication. The first sentence seems like reasonable material, but the level of detail about the patent is excessive. Regarding the earlier part of the paragraph, consider instead "The first publication of a combinatorial library was by G. Pieczenik in a patent disclosed in 1983[ref to the patent itself, or a secondary source about it]." The intricacies of what secondary contries got the patent and the timeline of the whole patent process aren't important. DMacks 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remove - at least, this is the opinion that I think would be best for the article. If anything, that material can be added to something like History of Combinatorial Chemistry. --HappyCamper 22:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remove Not helpful to the reader it seems to only involve some sort of legal establishment of facts for a patent dispute. If there is a patent dispute it could be mentioned as a dispute but only as a foot note. This article is about cominatorial chemistry not about who invented it. Yes the4 inventor could be mentioned but only if well established otherwise leave it out.--Nick Y. 01:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Furka's 1982 statement is available at here. In Hungary some regard him as THE founder of combinatorial chemistry (e.g. Istvan Hargittai, who frequently writes on the Nobel prize, sometimes mentioning that Furka surely deserves one). It would be good to know what exactly his part was in inventing combinatorial chemistry. Kope (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Basics of Combinatorial Chemistry
PotentialNewMoleculeProductionNodes = (2^M -1), and
ActualNewMoleculeProductionNodes = c*(2^M -1),
for any one iteration of analysis of Combinatorial Chemistry. Likewise, in Graph Theory, reactions networks are formed, from the base molecules, forming graphic networks of effective reactions, and feedback networks, for auto-reactive systems, that form multiple rings of self-reactions. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
ActualNewMoleculeProductionNodes = c*(2^12 -1) = c*(4096-1), with c=0.001
ActualNewMoleculeProductionNodes = 4
(12 molecules -> 16 molecules)
ActualNewMoleculeProductionNodes = c*(2^(12+4) -1) = c*(65536-1), with c=0.001
ActualNewMoleculeProductionNodes = 65
(16 molecules -> 81 molecules)
ActualNewMoleculeProductionNodes = c*(2^(12+4+65) -1) = c*(2.4*10^24), with c=0.001
ActualNewMoleculeProductionNodes = 2.4*10^21
(81 molecules -> near infinite molecule specie variety)
showing the explonetial power of combinatorial chemistry, and the very small "reactive molecule generative" c required in a system, to increase the number of durable reactive molecules exponentially.
Also, there should be some discussion of non-equilibrium systems, like closed mass systems, that are exposed to, say, light and darkness, of systems like a derivative of Miller Urey experiments, that are capable in Combinatorial Chemistry, of forming photon absorbing and energy storing sugar like molecules and molecular system netwokrs under daylight, and stored energy molecule decomposition in darkness, forming a basic photo-synthetic matabolic network like reaction in Combinatorial Chemistry System, akin to Alexander Oparin Abiogenesis theories from the 1920's. And also under non-equilibrium Combinatorial Chemistry molecular systems, are reaction networks that also arise, consuming such photo-synthetic energy storing molecules, in "carnivore" like energy consumption of the photo-synthetic energy storing molecules, all in a non-equilibrium Combinatorial Chemistry molecular system of extreme complexity. Likewise, the enemy concept of Intelligent Design, that persists in amazing perclusion of any potential complexity arising from simplicity, which can be attacked through a direct approach, that is effective against all but the most fundamental ignorant familiarity of dogma reactive system mathematics and graphs. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- then why are you adding this information only to the discussion page, instead of including it? Do you want some one else to do it for you184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
There has been large chunks of materials removed from the article. The comments were trying to justify some of them but as far as I see they were based on wrong assumptions. I am not involved in the discussion and not related to anyone here and called in as an arbitrator.
As far as I see (and I'm in a good position since I understand both English and Hungarian materials) Prof. Furka inserted large amounts of information and background on this part of chemistry which was either funded by him or considerably base on his work; he inserted references in a way scientific publication requires it (basically references every theory or method), and tried to reflect the science and history behind the topic from his view (since he's a human after all), with no visible outrageous bias.
First batch of removals were removing the references with the "borderline spam" comment and I guess this was quite unjust. If you observe the references they follow the science publication way and if it's not proper for a wikipedia article the excess can be removed or gathered at the bottom, but not all of them and not with hostile comments.
Considering the patent issue and whether he or someone else have invented the topic: it is an important part of the article but it's not the central one. It is quite clear for me why it wasn't patented in Hungary in 1982 (the system in th so called "communist era" worked way different here) so I see why he tried to have some document to prove that he actually invented it, but it's way too much detail for a WP article, I agree. Still, it is a proof of timeline, so for me it's quite obvious that his work predated the patented methods in the US, and I see why someone would like to have this information, which may be one of his scientific breakthroughs.
The article could be wikified, and possibly some refs removed, and maybe some events trimmed (I've tried to trim the most obvious ones), but please refrain from mass removal and impolite comments. Wikipedia policy prefers to have external sources and references, more than ever. And Prof. Furka may be one who have created the science we're writing about, my guess he deserves some respect, applied with good wikipedian judgement, as we all probably prefer. :-)
Material moved to talk, for discussion
Note, I have no opinion on the scientific or historical claims being made in the following redacted material. The material was removed to Talk, because of issues with the way in which text and citations are being used to make the scientific and historical claims. This edit is purely procedural, and without bias as to how the argument finally settles (here or elsewhere).
1. Reference removed because its support for the very general statements being made in the lede could not be verified, and it was the only reference to currently appear in the lede. Critically, this citation is to a conference presentation, and not to a published, refereed source, and is of limited content and availability, and so not is a standard, reputable secondary source. It is not sufficient as a source to support a general statement in the lede—or for that matter, anywhere else in an encyclopedic article. The source was replaced, in the lede, with a  tag:
- Ref>Á. Furka, F. Sebestyén, J. Gulyás, Computer made electrophoretic peptide maps. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Biochem. Separations, Keszthely, Hungary, pp. 35-42 (1988).</ref>
2. Paragraph removed because of POV issues, and/or piecemeal approach to subject's founding and history:
The principles were developed by Árpád Furka of Eötvös Loránd University and described in a proposal in 1982. REF Á. Furka, Combinatorial chemistry: 20 years on …Drug Discovery Today 2002, 7, 1-2. /REF [neutrality is disputed] which described a way to synthesize a combinatorial peptide library and a strategy of identification of the biologically active component of the peptide mixture. Professor Pieczenik, a colleague of Nobel Laureate Merrifield, synthesized the first combinatorial library. REF http://www.google.com/patents/US5866363/ REF [neutrality is disputed] In the 1980s researcher H. Mario Geysen developed this technique further, creating arrays of different peptides on separate supports, but not a combinatorial library based on random synthesis. In 1992, Barry Bunin and Jonathan Ellman published a landmark paper on the use of combinatorial chemistry for the synthesis of small molecule benxodiazepenes. REF Jung, Günther (2008). Combinatorial Peptide and Nonpeptide Libraries: A Handbook. John Wiley & Sons. p. 571. /REF
The issues with this paragraph are as follows:
- Opening sentence: One cannot use a review article by an individual scientist to establish, at Wikipedia, that she or he (that same author) was the founder of the field; it requires several reputable independent secondary sources and even text books making this claim.
- Second sentence: One cannot use a patent by an individual scientist to establish, at Wikipedia, that she or he (that patent submitter) was first to perform a particular procedure; it requires several reputable independent secondary sources making this claim.
- Next statement makes a further historical claim, but has sat unreferenced for more than a year.
- Next statement is a solid secondary source then appears citing Bunin-Ellman work; this was removed only because, i, to leave it would leave a single historical sentence remaining, and ii, even if all were left in, it would be a single reputable source, leaving sparse historical coverage in the field (1980s, jump, 1992, jump).
Bottom line, the whole article needs serious work, but this set of entries is so egregiously misguided in construction (Bunin-Ellman sentence excepted), that it had to be moved here, for discussion.
Note: If this move is reverted and no serious chemistry and history work done on this section, I will call in Admins to review, because from my perspective, this addresses claims of primacy by persons living, and so it is both an important scientific POV issue, as well as being a BLP matter.
The whole article is a bloody mess
…and a nightmare for any serious chemist to contemplate editing into a passable article, Sorry, one opinion. How it got here, no matter. Where it goes—someone with expertise needs to come in and gut it:
- remove all unreferenced text to Talk;
- remove all primary referenced text, and all primary references, to Talk, and
then with what remains create a decent article outline and stub. If one comes to it to edit in this shape, one simply cannot easily begin to add good solid material from secondary and tertiary sources. Until it is put into a form to receive good material, it will be any easy place to add further junk material, and will not easily be turned into a useful article. Again, one opinion. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)