Color me skeptical on this new project. Very reminiscent of the flu project, FAH1, Ebola. All Autodock4/Vina projects from Scripps. All have produced next to nothing after years of work. If it goes like the other projects, it will start to great fanfare (remember Ebola) then after 8 to 9 months will start to die off and then after 2 to 3 years of running there will be a post stating that the researchers have all the data they need and will start analyzing the HUGH amounts of data and the project ends. Very little communication from the project. This just seems like a rehash of the same old stuff. The PI (Stefano Forli) for this new project was a researcher during the FAH Phase 1 stuff and took over for Alex Perryman when he left if I remember correctly. If this is intended to work during a Pandemic then there needs to be data analysis done from the start and expect to have a least some candidate compounds in wet lab testing in months, not years. I'm not convinced but hey, good for badges!!

- IIRC, the FLU project didn't really do much other than releasing the data. I remember some post saying the virus was no longer an emergency so they were putting that research aside for now and focusing on the Dengue project, a project which did give us some good communication, IMO https://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/about_us/d...amp;sortBy=&pageNum=1.


There was a FAAH update in 2010 about a potentially "novel class of HIV fighting drugs" (something like that). And 10 years later, what happened regarding that research? Anything? It's hard for people to join if they see projects running for years and years and there isn't something detailing the current science status and updates on previous research.
Project communication has to be improved. We've been saying that for years lol.
I think there should be some sort of science section for each project with updates about what is being worked on and update it periodically (is a few lines of text every 3 or 4 months too much to ask?).

"As of XX-XX-XXXX, we are working on this and that. Also, we've continued following up on the research previously described in project update X and are seeing encouraging results which we hope to describe in more detail in a future update OR regarding the leads described in project update X, none of them panned out"

Just my opinion.

Of course. I'm fine with "simply" adding more knowledge. I just wish we had more updates on what is happening, that's all.

I'm not saying it's not a useful project but based on history at WCG it probably isn't going to produce anything of any tangible value. I'm not one that requires constant communication but going back over the previous projects, nothing was actually produced of any clinical value. To me, the Ebola project was a complete dud. Towards the end, it even looked like the PI lost interest. It just looks too much like a "Johnny come lately" project just to say WCG has a COVID-19 project. Sorry, I'm skeptical...
Probably need to clarify the word useful... Even failures contribute to the body of knowledge but anything other than that is highly unlikely. What's the old saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Ebola? Nothing. FAH1? Nothing, Flu? Nothing. Dengue? Nothing, Marlaria? Nothing, "COVID_19'"? .........

All true enough. Autodock uses the method of minimizing the free energy for the docked compound (more or less). Whether that produces useful results probably depends a lot on the accuracy of the models fed into it. I am willing to believe that the scientists have made progress on this front over the years, and may achieve some useful results. I just would not bet all my computing resources on it.

And it is not just directed to Covid-19, but to the coronaviruses in general. It could be a useful supplement to the other projects, even if not for a quick cure. We don't have to pass judgement on it immediately, just keep our eye on it.