>>13009660six-sigma was an engineering standard born at General Electric stating that everything they produced would be "guaranteed" to be withing "six-sigma" (six standards of deviations) of spec (from airplane parts, performance, etc), i.e. 99.7% perfect.
proof-within-assumptions meaning, if a particular drug was specifically designed within some amount of time, rigorous enough testing of surrounding behavior and known interactions of a human environment (maybe from a genome, reasonable environmental factors, non-mixing with other substances), a derived probability of bounds of drug behavior could be "guaranteed", possibly with cascading contingencies etc.
purely computational, meaning these interactions were based on rigorous modeling of based on genetic information and drug compounds before the fact, and by design, without the need for in-vivo testing.
---
all of these things would require a true *understanding* of the range of a particular molecules behavior and interaction, possibly from QFT derived models of sub-atomic structure, *complete* coverage of the power-set of all possible interactions, either from drastically improved analysis algorithms or possibly some clever topological "kock-out" rules for perturbations of a tailored, template-based dynamic system that had been thoroughly "searched".
essentially, a more predictable framework to make new drugs more understood and outcomes more predictable.
current molecular dynamics relies on Hartree–Fock methods and Oppenheimer Approximations to even be able to solve the wave equation for polymers, at great expense, scaling exponentially. Beyond that, more generalized dynamics are just guess work.
what I want there to be instead is small, modular, composable components with known interactions to maximize customized development and minimize the space of unknown interactions with a common human genome archetype. This is the key safe, economical, secure, biological engineering and personalized medicine.
