Earlier this year, I had a conversation with Sophia Ktori, a reporter for Scientific Computing World, to talk about security issues in the age of R&D outsourcing. In the ensuing article, Sophia stated, “The R&D sector is increasingly turning to collaborative, partnered and outsourced projects to boost innovation, reduce costs and help expedite development.” While this is not an industry secret, this trend has led to a number of security concerns in our industry, and after looking back, I feel our discussion still rings true almost 10 months later.
When naming chemical compounds, there are a myriad of correct names that accurately describe the structure. N-methyl-3-phenyl-3-[4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]propan-1-amine, fluoxetine, or Prozac—they can all be interpreted as the same compound. But is there a “more correct” name? There wasn’t, until recently…
We still find it a thrill when we bump into someone who says “ACD/Labs…are you the ones who make ChemSketch?”, and they then go on to regale us with a story about when/where they were using the software. As one of the most basic software requirements for scientists—a tool that helps them document and communicate their science in chemical structures—ACD/ChemSketch is often one of the first pieces of software they will use in their career, which means there is often nostalgia attached to its use.
Last week, we announced updates across our suite of informatics software! These improvements deliver enhanced functionality to a number of offerings on the ACD/Spectrus and ACD/Percepta Platforms. The updates also includes the introduction of our all-new metabolite identification solution, MetaSense.
From Pfizer to ACD/Labs, then PepsiCo and back to ACD/Labs, Andrew Anderson’s extensive work experience across different positions and fields makes him a great resource for career advice. Following part one and part two of our “5 Questions with Andrew Anderson” series, he shared a number of tips he has picked up during his time in the pharma, software and food & beverage industries.
We’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the value of Computer Assisted Structure Elucidation (CASE) around here lately. There’s a good reason for that: we’ve been doing a lot of work on CASE for the last 18 years, and the work is only accelerating. So it’s worthwhile to reassess every now and then. Much goes into improving software like this to take on ever-more complex tasks, and to do those tasks ever more effectively.
If you’ve had the pleasure to meet Andrew Anderson, you would know that he’s quite passionate about his work at ACD/Labs. When I sat down with him earlier this month, he had a lot to say about innovation within both the industry and our company. In part one of our two part series, Andrew shared how his previous role at PepsiCo has influenced his work at ACD/labs. He also discussed what’s different about the company since his return late last year. Now, in the second part of our conversation, Andrew shares his thoughts on ACD/Labs’ greatest contributions as well as where he predicts—or hopes—the company and industry will be in the next five years. Enjoy!
Towards the end of 2015, Andrew Anderson rejoined ACD/Labs after an almost decade long hiatus to pursue roles at PepsiCo and Symyx. Upon his return, Andrew took the time to tell us a bit about his experience away from ACD/Labs and why he decided to come back.
In my past life, before ACD/Labs, I was an organic/medicinal chemist. I share this because it’s relevant to the topic. My first responsibility at ACD/Labs was to create materials to support our PhysChem product line. Many of the descriptors that made up the products I was charged with talking about—such as pKa, solubility, etc.—were first introduced to me by Mr. Jackson, my chemistry teacher in secondary school (high school). The others I learned about during my BSc and PhD—logP (from Lipinski’s rule-of-5), for example. I will confess, however, that when I was asked in my interview how I applied/considered logD values in my research I was completely stumped. What’s logD? I’d never heard of it!
There is widespread agreement that going digital will help us manage data better, make us more productive, more innovative and ultimately enable us to make smarter decisions—all the way from the bench to the boardroom. Yet, we remain relatively early in the transition from paper to paperless lab, despite the need for organizations to become more innovative and more competitive.