My understanding is that their work is more like "coupling" than "entanglement" (as the media describes entanglement). From the abstract of their arXiv article, it sounds like what they're looking at is the motion of the base pairs together. This is certainly pretty cool, but it's not quite the same as some of the other results on quantum entanglement where two particles are entangled and by observing one, you can infer the other, etc etc.
There are two points regarding the relevance of organic chemistry to future doctors that the article could expand on further.
1. Organic chemistry is often the first class that a prospective future doctor takes that requires you to develop proper study habits. One can get away with most other introductory level courses in the sciences by cramming during the day or two before the exam. Organic chemistry is different--it requires structured and daily studying. This is an essential skill for anyone planning to go to medical school.
2. Organic chemistry teaches you to thing and reason about objects in three-dimensional space. Stereochemistry (roughly: if something is right handed or left handed) is an essential idea in organic chemistry. Being able to think about objects in 3D space is a very useful ability (and necessary) for a future doctor.
Prof. Phil Sharp [1] received the Nobel Prize and founded Biogen, one of the earliest biotech companies. He remains on the faculty at MIT as an Institute Professor, the highest distinction awarded to MIT faculty.
> To test this idea, they used slivers of wood from yellow pines. First, they coated these with carbon nanotubes, to improve their conductivity. Then they applied a film of tin to each sliver.
There's a lot more that is going on than just the wood.
This webpage by the FDA [1] is also a simple and easy resource about generic drugs.
The basic fact about generic drugs is that they have to contain the same active compound(s) and they have to match the bioavailability (active compound presence in the blood or other targeted region). If the generic drug fits this and is FDA-approved, then it can be sold.
The composition of a pill is complex. There is the active compound, but there are also many other compounds that are needed to make the pill into a discrete structural unit, instead of a fine white-ish powder, the native form of many organic molecules. See [2] for a common example. The composition of these ingredients can vary dramatically between the brand name drug and generics. I know somebody who is allergic to a number of generic drugs, but is fine with the brand name drug. This is presumably due to different fillers used to make the pill.
In some cases, the fillers used in the generic are very similar to those used in the brand-name drug. However, in many cases, they are different and it is incorrect to say that they are identical. However, in the majority of cases, it really does not matter, and Americans are probably wasting billions a year. But in some cases, buying the brand-name is necessary.
Talking to other people in the field is a great way to find influential work. You can only read so many papers, but by talking to many other people, you expand your accessible information. Other people can mention that this paper is great or that they've seen a series of great papers from a particular lab, etc and point out connections that you might miss. It's not just the frequency of names that matters though, it's the quality of work? Are they doing revolutionary or deeply insightful work or are they doing lots of good work, but that isn't _great_ work. (Yes, the comparison is a little vague--leaving that open to interpretation intentionally).
