|
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Pharma gets friendly
Posted by Edyta Zielinska [Entry posted at 21st July 2008 04:34 PM GMT]
Rate this article
Return to Top comment: can't wait 'til Exxon joins Shell and BP! by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2008-07-22 22:07:59] This is parallel to the union of the oil giants to form a new corporation intent on guiding academic research focused on alternative energy sectors. I would find the development slightly disconcerting to say the least. Return to Top comment: Buying Power? by Li Chen [Comment posted 2008-07-22 21:00:52] Exciting News! What is the main function of this new company? Creating a shopping list and more buying power? Return to Top comment: Pharma has its reasons for being friendly by Robert Von Borstel [Comment posted 2008-07-22 15:22:50] What is in it for the scientist in an academic setting? Are they now to work for the pharmaceutical companies while still being paid a salary by the University? Is the University attempting to put the academic staff into the servitude of Pharmaceutical companies, and asking for a 1/3 or 1/2 portion of the incoming funding for scientific research to be placed in University management coffers?
By and large, significant scientific discoveries are seldom immediately seen to be useful for pharmaceutical companies to sell. There is about a 20-year gap from significant discovery to the engineering or fiddling required to make a salable product. Return to Top comment: New Ideas by null null [Comment posted 2008-07-22 13:41:30] Pharma could benefit from some fundamentally new ideas. Why not exercise randomized experimental control to assess causality starting at the level of each individual patient? Why not use computation to measure the benefit/harm of a type of treatment over time and across health variables for each individual patient? Why not perform statistical tests on benefit/harm scores rather than on health variables or changes in health variables? Why not balance safety and effectiveness across many health variables simultaneously and transparently starting at the level of each individual patient? Why not assess benefit/harm as a function of dose for each health variable and across all health variables starting at the level of each individual patient? Why not distinguish true responders on active treatment from responders on active treatment that would have responded to placebo? Why not obtain reliable and valid measures of how individual patients respond so that it will be easier to identify genetic and other predictors of differential response? Why not integrate new gold standard methods of clinical research with new gold standard methods of clinical practice? All this and more is possible when drugs are being developed and used to manage and control most chronic health problems. All this and more would help get the right drug at the right dose to the right patient while avoiding the killing of patients and products.
Academia can be great. However, academia is not the font of all new ideas related to drug discovery and development. Posted by Curtis A. Bagne Return to Top comment: Pharma & academia by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2008-07-22 02:28:41] What's really interesting these days, and this paper shows a new example of what's going on, is that Pharma finally learned (the hard way) that really creative research is in the academia (or from the academia: emerging biotechs).
The next problem might be that with outsourcing fundamental, preclinical and clinical research, Pharma is slowly becoming one kind of project managing wrapper and GMP production specialist, ....who wants to keep patents and big earnings. There definitely is a new relationship to build between pharmas and with the governments / academia these days, since a lot of drugs expenses are refunded to patients by governments with tax money. Anyway, even very preliminary, this sounds good. Return to Top comment: A step in the right direction! by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2008-07-22 02:16:33] Some may call this a desperate measure stimulated by the current innovation dearth and looming patent expiries, Big Pharma having realized that horizontal integration does not solve the problem. The idea of setting up a skounkworks is nothing new but I think it is a step in the right direction for Big Pharma. Rigid structures and strategies prevailing in in-house R&D organizations would not allow doing what this organization may be able to do if it should indeed receive the required resources from its corporate parents. Return to Top comment: Global villages vs exclusive IP by Eric Gosink [Comment posted 2008-07-21 18:05:56] Global villages are a nice idea but pharma companies want exclusive intellectual property positions (translation: no sharing) for therapeutics. How will these partners decide who gets first pick on new ideas if/when they flow in? Given the high level of financial support (for early academic stage research), I don't think they are assuming that all IP will be shared and/or non-proprietary. Perhaps the companies have a back room deal based upon their individual percentage investments in the program???? Return to Top comment: How Does This Happen? by john toeppen [Comment posted 2008-07-21 13:27:08] I am getting the feeling that individuals that are globally connect by the internet and blogs are the part of undercurrent that creates new possibilities. Many of us have been connected through websites, blogs, and by sending links among friends. Ideas now move around very quickly and new collaborations become possible. Shared causes and team efforts create new opportunities for entire industries. While competition is keen in established markets, new markets and new products are the ultimate source of long term well being. Perhaps enlightened self interest is being enabled by enhanced individual connectivity.
Is the global village finally really happening? Can our own self interests be best served by cooperation? I think that we can do more than simply have hope ? we can participate. Comment on this blog |