Analytically determining structure of large molecules uses technology that’s analogous to how we determine blood type – immunoassay. Same technology used for low rent urinalysis for drug use (MS/GC is much superior technology for drug metabolite testing).

Two chemicals can be identical in composition and structure, except that one is the mirror image of the other. And the crazy thing is that one might work, and the other might not.

The handedness of molecules is a funny thing – it really does matter, though. At a guess, the left-handed versions work better, because that’s what we use.

(I remember reading that thalidomide is handed, and one version is safe, but the other is the one that causes the problem. I don’t know how true that is, though.)

Bob in AZ

And then two chemicals that are different in composition and structure might have exactly the same effect– because the business end of both molecules is the same. So the reward structure needs to provide sufficient incentives, without providing excessive profits. I don’t know enough to judge which is which, but I trust Jane.

My situation is not as life-threatening as Jane’s is/was, but presently one of my crucial medications also has unfortunate side effects. It would greatly improve my quality of life if drug research could eliminate the side effects while maintaining the functionality. The present reward structure, exorbitant as it is, seems insufficient to yield results that would be more satisfactory to me and most other men.

On the other hand, the drug industry does not like simple, easily manufactured chemicals. Something like aspirin, if it were discovered today, would not interest most Big Pharmas, because it is natural and not patentable, IIRC. The industry is way out of alignment on that score, too.

The system as it is, is rigged in favor of Big Pharma. Adjustments are in order.

Bob in AZ

“When the only tool you have is a strawman, all problems look like Marcy”?