Talk:Molecular medicine

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance).

I

I made this page because I was surprised to find it lacking from Wikipedia. If anyone can flesh it out with more information (particularly from the US) I'd be very glad - Zeb Edee.

Zeb Edee, would you consider combining this page with the Personalized medicine page? Perhaps it's just a difference in naming. - alane4writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alane4writing (talk • contribs) 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Medicine is a fairly substaintial new discipline in British universities but also is growing in the US normally as a Post.Grad. subject. Merging would not really be suitable, I will try to expand on it as it stands. Plus it does really come under the scope of the medicine wikiproject. Its more of a molecular science as only a limited part of the courses are usually clinical and involve no patient interaction, the crux of these courses is the molecular research side of things.WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actual phrase "Molecular medicine" has its roots in the 1940s (see Science Perspectives: Molecular Medicine, pp 1488-1490, the section, Objectives of molecular medicine and how to achieve them. Earlier investigators, such as Archibald Garrod and John Beard in the early 1900s, clearly had related concepts in mind even earlier[1]. As originally used, treating medical problems that were identified and described in terms cellular & molecular structures and mechanism treated with "simple" chemical substances to interact with the identified molecular biological system seemed to be the goal of investigators, e.g. Pauling. Since then many -omic toolkits have been added. A significant aspect seems to be an evolution from humble beginnings and goals to predominately focus on molecular biology to describe the problem *and* to provide a complex (patentable) treatment product, in commercial and institutional circles. Pauling's continuation of the subject eventually led to orthomolecular medicine which more recognizably spans the earlier view to the complex biological molecules using existing natural substances in the human body and diet. The metabolomics toolkit clearly originated with Pauling and Robinson in pursuit of orthomolecular applications.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more on historical molecular medicine

In large part, vitamins and other nutrients were the primary materials previously studied and available at the 1950s dawn of molecular medicine. Pauling and Roger J Williams (e.g. acknowledged in Principles of Molecular Medicine) represented major figures who directed research, conceptualized, and defined major parts of early molecular medicine during the period, 1940s-1960s, their perspectives often nutrient and metabolism based as well as genetic.

Most controlling patents on basic nutrients were expired or expiring by the 1950s, if not precluded in toto by published papers and "know-how". For economic reasons, grant, rent or other profit seeking institutions inherently had to move to new molecular species and frontiers. Also many substantial groups have sought from the very beginning to directly control the manufacture, distribution and/or recommendation of nutrient based health & medicine (e.g. the long running 1930s legal battles between the pharmacies and the grocery chains over "merely" selling vitamins). Although to the younger or more positioned readers, genetic and (re-)engineered substances may appear to be a sine qua non element of molecular medicine, such a supposition is simply ahistorical. The 1940-50s science and technologies that introduced molecular medicine have continued to evolve alongside Pauling's orthomolecular medicine definition although long deprecated and attacked by elements of large and well funded groups, often *some* of the "-seekers", mentioned above. As for orthomolecular medicine, although which allegory such as "bastard sibling" or "siamese twin" might better reflect common biases in some segments, OMM is inherently a subset of literal "molecular medicine".--TheNautilus (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]