Private Journals

[BLreturn11]

What with the recent, dare I say exponential scouring of published medical journals for failed/novel pharmaceuticals suitable for the research chemical market.

Does anyone have any thought as to repercussions: Some examples:

1) Shulgin (I know the legend if getting old so this is my weakess point), even in his new book omits subjective experiences (Is the man himself feeling guilt about releasing chemicals in to the wider (non-scientific) community? I can't help but feel he knows a cosiderable MORE self-tested compounds which are non released in the public domain (think 5-meo-dalt only released when the formula was leaked)

2) super potent cannabinoid receptor agonists pulled from researh papers. A potentieal trigger to either reduce publication/reduce chemical structures in text and/or create an invite only phd researh database of compounds (no doubt something that exists already in pharm companies for logical patent reasons but something which could converge on to phd/university publications

In other words just like novel "research chemical" discovery has gone further underground so has official research chemical discovery?.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[Epsilon Alpha]

I'll consider this ADD only if the discussion remains technical, but with the advent of the grey market for research chemicals and the apparent disregard some people have for their own safety findings are being published less and less.

I recall a certain paper a friend of mine was 8th author on (imagine a giant undergrad workforce in the lab), on certain gap junction modulators was very stingy on what it reported in regards to SAR. It might be because the sponsor of the study wants to keep it a trade secret, or it could be fears over a abusable analog of modafinil.

Sorry for being vague but its not in my interest to give away details on who me or my circle of friends are.

 

[specialspack]

Some background reading from last year:

Original WSJ article - "In Quest for 'Legal High,' Chemists Outfox Law"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704763904575550200845267526.html

Nichol's response to said article:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110105/full/469007a.html

Blog commentary - http://solarsaddle.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/is-david-nichols-just-a-wee-bit-disingenuous/

More blog commentary - http://cenblog.org/terra-sigillata/...the-social-responsibilities-of-the-scientist/

With regard to the OP, yes I can see that there might well reluctance to publish certain aspects.. however, for peer reviewed science to work there has to be a degree of openness and info will leak through the gaps.

Epsilon you've piqued my interest about gap junction modulation now