Fifty Years of Achievement . . . but medicinal chemistry faces a future c rammed with question marks a n d chal lenge

1 3 6 ACS NATIONAL MEETING Medicinal Chemistry '

Fifty years of achievement—a boast worthy of celebration for any group. And celebrat ing a half century crowded with memorab le milestones is the Divi­sion of Medicinal Chemistry of the American Chemical Society. Top event in the festivities: an all-day symposium at the 136th National Meeting of the ACS, held at Atlantic City. A battery of speakers that reads like a "Who's W h o " in medicinal chemistry recounted top events of the past 50 years. A sam­pling: a spectrum of drugs effective against bacter ial diseases which evoked dread only two decades ago; and a fast growing list of chemicals useful in treat­ing mental illness.

But a long with the kudos came re­minders that successes were often the result of accidental findings—that organ­ized research looks like an especially fruitful p a t h for discovery of new drugs in the future.

► C o o p e r a t i v e Research Is Key. "Cooperat ion of disciplines" is one big reason for the drug industry's progress. Dr. Max Tishler of Merck Sharp & Dohme told medicinal chemists. Re­search at a typical modern drug com­pany, says Dr. Tishler, depends on a meshing of men of many scientific disci­plines. This sort of team effort gives the industry a versatility and flexibility seldom found in other industries.

Dr. Tishler credits much of the prog­ress in medicinal chemistry to investiga­tions of life processes and application of the findings. More such research is needed, says Dr. Tishler, pointing out that empir ical screening of materials for biological activity is in vogue today. Given enough perceptive minds, "we will see major medical breakthroughs via rational approaches in our lifetime," predicts Dr. Tishler.

► Successes . . . and Chal lenges . There 's no question that chemotherapy of bacterial diseases is one of the high lights of the past 50 years in medicinal chemistry. The advent of the sulfa drugs in the 1930's—the first drugs effective against bacteria and some large viruses—touched off a vast search

for even more effective chemical agents that led to today's antibiotics, says Dr. J. P. English, American Cyanamid.

But some thorny problems remain to be solved, including virus infections and resistance to drugs by many bac­teria.

► Control of Mental i i iness. The last great frontier for medical research is the brain, says Dr. C. Jelliff Carr of the National Institute of Mental Health at the National Institutes of Health. Progress in psychopharmacology is a "tr iumphant example of the medicinal chemist's art ," but mental illness re­mains a "compelling challenge" today, says Dr. Carr.

Today's armamentar ium against mental disease is impressive: 12 tran­quilizers in clinical use; five nonhyp-notic skeletal muscle relaxants; 13 anti-depressive agents; and eight nonbar-hiturate sedatives.

But we don't understand the mental effects of these agents, and they aren't cures. Dr. Carr feels that medical sci­ence is on the threshold of a chemo­therapy for such ailments. Needed: answers to how the brain exerts its in­fluence; how chemicals affect the brain.

► Role of Biochemist. Lack of knowledge of the chemistry of bodily processes is a big hurd le in the path of more new therapeutic agents, says Dr. Sidney Udenfriend, National Heart In­stitute. T h e research team today—or­ganic chemist, biologist, and c l in ic ian-works well. But biochemists could play a big part in upping the efficiency of this team. Some examples:

Biochemists could help explain the action of older drugs—a great need to­day; this could lead to new drugs. Bio­chemists could he lp explain toxicity; and biochemists could help develop new drugs by studying structure-effect relationships—nobody can now predict the effect of a modification in structure on physiological effect.

Industry- isn't using its biochemists effectively, says Dr . Udenfriend. In­stead of using biochemists in service capacities—analytical, and the l i k e -make them a bigger part of the research team, he suggests. Industry should great!y expand its biochemical depart­ments, says Dr. Udenfriend. This would result in a bigger flow of new ideas—and more new products .

ACS Meeting Scores Big

Employment Clearing House cracks records; writers hear Dr. Kistiakowsky

JNIo DOUBT about it ACS national meetings are big league. And t h e 136th ACS National Meeting just com­pleted in Atlantic City is no exception. Some signposts: Registration totaled over 10,700; representatives of indus­try, universities, and Government de ­scended on the Employment Clearing House in record numbers to interview' job applicants; and President Eisen­hower's Special Assistant for Science and Technology, Dr. George B. Kistia­kowsky, chose Atlantic City to make his first speech since assuming his post.

► Records Fall. No registration rec­ord was set at this meeting, but nearly 11,000 registrants qualify any meeting as big.

Several new records were bung up by the Employment Clearing House, though: nearly 1100 employers regis­tered—an all t ime high. Applicants numbered 372; a record 5700 inter­views were arranged, with applicants scoring a record shattering 15 inter­views apiece—the average at past ACS meetings has been around nine. The interview pace was torrid, hitting a record 160 per hour.

► Improve Intel lectual Tone. Sci­ence writers must do more than report science news, advises Dr. Kistiakow­sky, speaking at the National Associa­tion of Science Writers ' 25th anniver­sary meeting in Atlantic City. They must "act as missionaries and revival leaders in stimulating respect for in­tellectual ism and creating the desire for intellectual excellence." While the national objective shouldn't be to create an elite of intellectuals, cautions Dr. Kistiakowsky, there must be a con­scious desire to cultivate intellectual ex­cellence. Otherwise, there can't b e a desirable level of scientific activity.

► Science a n d Technology Differ. Setting u p moon stations, curing dis­eases, and the like aren't examples of science, points out Dr. Kistiakowsky. They're t r iumphs of engineering and technology. But the difference isn't clearly understood, he says. ". . . we may fail to cultivate science adequately . . .," warns Dr. Kistiakowsky, "if we fail to understand the nature of scien­tific research and what it requires to flourish."

2 6 C & E N SEPT. 2 8, 1959