Hi Digi-U,
regarding your question related to "computer modelling".
Life science research is highly time consuming and expensive since many experiments take a lot of time and required a lot of personnel and equipment resources.
Over the last 25 years, taking advantage of strong increasing of computational power and of progress in modelling knowledge, so-called "in-silico" research has been developed.

Usually in life science - pharma, including biotech, and agri products - the way for discovering a new active ingredient or a new mechanism is very long. It explains why life science research takes years to decades.
The basic figure can be summarised as following:
- 100'000 substances will be screened (high level)
- 1'000 of those will be selected and more investigations (tests) will be conducted
- 100 of those will be selected for deeper investigations
- 10 candidates will be selected where extensive and comprehensive investigations will be performed.
- If you are lucky, at the end of the work, you will maybe have 1 (or 2) new product what can be put on the market.

In-silico research makes possible to extent and to deepen the initial screening activities.
In-silico only is not sufficient and maybe not possible for some types of research.
In-silico research based on various mechanisms - docking research, marker identification, gene identification, etc. - helps a lot to screen very large data collection and ingredient properties, enabling to focus in-vitro and in-vivo work on more reliable candidates.

It will not be possible to elaborate a vaccine or a therapy only based on in-silico research. However in-silico work will help to speed-up the initial screening phase and to deepen later phases supporting a better understanding of concerned mechanism.

Life science is highly complex and the work cannot be really speed-up in the laboratory (cells need time for growing, bacteria, mice required to be prepared before being used for experiences, ...).
The only way to speed-up the work and to increase the chance to find something good is to improve the initial screening and to elaborate models for better understanding.

It is the reason, why I support WCG sciences since so many years.

Happy crunching and thank you for your contribution,
Yves
---
FYI: Developing a new drug substance, a new therapy, or vaccine (including clinical studies and registration):
- takes between 8 (if you are lucky) and 10 years, sometime even longer.
- costs about 1 to 2 billions USD resp. EUR (generally closer to 2 than to 1)

Only processing time for the 2 resources CPU and GPU are considered, and separately scheduled. There's no weighting for anything else, though some projects have been heavy handed on the credit awarding to curry favor, speak have a volunteer increase the resource share for their project.

Whichever project gets added later gets an initial boost until REC is balanced again. Of course WCG counts all their subprojects into a single REC entry, it does not see OPN1 separately. For that, some take the approach of WCG really being 6 projects so they set WCG to 600 and let all other 'single project' projects run at 100.

if you check the rosetta forums, Digi-U - you'll see there's a shortage. You can feel free to support OpenPandemics in the meantime if you'd like. It could be a while before Rosetta gets more WUs.