Opinion ID: 2161593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Structure-activity information

Text: The first category of data upon which Dr. Done based his opinion involved what he termed the structure-activity of Bendectin. He explained that pharmacologists are frequently able ... to look at the structure [of a chemical compound] and predict what kind of activity that compound will have. And one of the jobs of pharmacology is to try to find that out, because that is how we design drugs to do certain jobs. Dr. Done said that the type of activity or function that a drug performs usually has a bearing on the issue of ... teratogenicity; some antihistamines, for example, have been found to have teratogenic effects. One of the three components of Bendectin, doxylamine succinate, is an antihistamine. [4] Dr. Done testified that it is a known teratogen for some animals and that it is suspected of being a human teratogen as well. Appellee correctly states in its brief that [c]onsidered alone, the structure-activity of Bendectin did not provide a basis for Dr. Done to conclude that Bendectin was a teratogen. But Dr. Done did not consider it alone, as he made clear before he even began to discuss Bendectin's structure-activity. On direct examination he was asked, So you can't just take the structure by itself and make a determination [as to Bendectin's teratogenicity]? He responded, That's right. Never can you take one and say it will not be. On cross-examination he said the same thing. Dr. Done was asked, with regard to the chemical activity and chemical structures, those alone wouldn't enable you to reach an opinion on what caused Mary Virginia Oxendine's birth defect, would they? He answered, Not alone, no. At the hearing on the motion for judgment n.o.v., however, the court recalled Dr. Done's testimony on the structure-activity of Bendectin somewhat differently: he told me that ... no conclusions can be drawn because Bendectin has an antihistamine in it, and it proved to be teratogenic in animals, yet no conclusions may be drawn, and yet he said, however, that [this information is] helpful. The court's recollection of the testimony was unfortunately flawed. Dr. Done did not say that no conclusions could be drawn from the structure-activity information. On the contrary, he testified that the information provided a clue about Bendectin's possible teratogenicity, which helped him to reach his final opinion in the case. He specifically said that teratologists generally rely on such data in combination with in vitro, in vivo, and epidemiological studies in reaching conclusions regarding the teratogenicity of a substance; the whole collection is what is generally used.