The changing signiﬁcance of chance experiments in technological development
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Industrial drug design methodology has undergone remarkable changes in the recent history. Up to the 1970s, the screening of large numbers of randomly selected substances in biological test system was often a crucial step in the development of novel drugs. From the early 1980s, such ‘blind’ screening was increasingly rejected by many pharmaceutical researchers and gave way to ‘rational drug design’, a method that grounds the design of new drugs on a detailed mechanistic understanding of the drug action. Surprisingly, however, the chance-based method of random screening returned to center stage of industrial drug development in the 1990s in the form of ‘high-throughput screening’ (HTS). I will argue in this paper that this to-and-fro in the prominence of random screening comes with fundamental changes in the epistemic signiﬁcance of chance experiments in pharmaceutical development. While up to the 1970s, random screening used to be chosen as an empirical search strategy primarily because suﬃ- cient knowledge of the mechanistic basis of drug action was lacking, it has turned with high-throughput screening into an experimental method that employs chance variation and testing to illuminate this mechanistic basis. As a consequence, research into the underlying mechanisms of drug action and the development of new drugs have become closely integrated. The rise of HTS therefore not only shows how chance experiments have assumed a new epistemic role in drug development. It also allows for a detailed study of the much debated emergence of a new relationship between scientiﬁc understanding and the development of technological artifacts.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Arrigo Schieppati, Norberto Perico & Giuseppe Remuzzi (2002). Conflict of Interest as Seen From a Researcher's Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):337-342.
Laurence J. Hirsch (2002). Conflicts of Interest in Drug Development: The Practices of Merck & Co., Inc. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):429-442.
Harvey E. Bale (2005). Industry, Innovation and Social Values. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (1):31-40.
Thomas C. Jones (2005). A Call to Restructure the Drug Development Process: Government Over-Regulation and Non-Innovative Late Stage (Phase III) Clinical Trials Are Major Obstacles to Advances in Health Care. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (4):575-587.
Leslie E. Blumenson (1987). How Would a Latent Period for Early Breast Cancer Affect the Benefit of Screening? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2 (2):169-182.
Matthias Adam (2011). Multi-Level Complexities in Technological Development: Competing Strategies for Drug Discovery. In M. Carrier & A. Nordmann (eds.), Science in the Context of Application. Springer 67--83.
Matthias Adam (2005). Integrating Research and Development: The Emergence of Rational Drug Design in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 36 (3):513-537.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #534,045 of 1,725,561 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #349,436 of 1,725,561 )
How can I increase my downloads?