I now realize that the editorial charge of discussing the physiological benefit that channelling might provide was impossible to do successfully due to the differing opinions of the participants. The target article generated many diverse commentaries based upon many different views. Some commentators object that the evidence for the existence of channelling is just my "wishful thinking" (Giersch, 1991); others refuse to acknowledge the existence of channelling simply because it is "based only on kinetic observations, and is not bolstered either by logic or structure" (Knowles, 1991); still others argue that I have not dealt with the more complex systems and the examples I mentioned "are all of reactions that, if non-channelled, would occur in three-dimensional space" (Westerhoff, 1991). But let us consider just one of the basic arguments, namely the effect of channelling on the steady-state rate of the metabolic flux. It is clear from the commentary papers that there are many concepts, not only diverse but opposite. For illustration, I can provide some pro and con statements from these papers:
Channelling "can largely enhance the catalytic efficiency of a given metabolic pathway, promoting a faster conversion process which involves a greater flux and a lesser transition time" (Mel6ndez-Hevia & Montero, 1991).