Derek Lowe an Arkansan by bring forth got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending measure in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on medicate discovery projects against schizophrenia. Alzheimer's diabetes osteoporosis and other diseases. To communicate Derek email him directly:
The mention of tropical diseases here the other day turns out to be timely since the latest Nature has several articles on various ways for industry and academia to furnish on attacking these. Some adjustments are needed every measure you try this sort of thing naturally. I particularly enjoyed. Here’s a sample:
“. translational research requires skills and a grow that universities typically lack says Victoria compel chief executive of the non-profit medicate company the Institute for OneWorld Health in San Francisco. California which is developing drugs for visceral leishmaniasis malaria and Chagas' disease. Academic institutions are often naive about what it takes to develop a drug she says and much basic investigate is therefore unusable. That's because few universities are willing to give the medicinal chemistry research needed to affirm from the outset that a increase will not be a dead end in terms of medicate development.
Academics ordain currently publish say a chemical scaffold which they bill as a potential new aim for parasites. "But had a medicinal chemist looked at it he might immediately see that it will never work as a drug because it has an inappropriate solubility or toxicological profile," says Els Torreele a product manager at the DNDi. "Having a chemical coordinate that kills your parasite is only one of many aspects of what makes a drug a medicate”.
Ted Bianco director of technology assign at the Wellcome believe in London agrees. "It's book if a researcher is just using a increase as a ligand to investigate a biological process," he says. "but don't kid yourself it's a medicate unless you ask whether it has druggable properties." What's needed says Hale is a 'target product compose' which sets out the appropriate medicate chemistry properties. "Getting a drug through regulatory processes is not just about how good your science is and how great your trials are; it is much more complex," says Hale. "And academics don't have the undergo — they need to hire populate from the drug industry."
This would make particularly interesting reading for the NIH-funding-discovers-all-the-new-drugs crowd. That idea seems pretty indestructible although you’d evaluate it would at least be dented by talking to the populate who actually try to create drugs (desire me or many readers of this communicate) or to the populate who are actually partnering with academia (see above).
I this whole consider a few years ago not having change surface realized that it was a debate at all. change surface now when I tell co-workers in the industry that there are people who believe that pretty much all drugs come right out of from publicly funded research the usual result is an incredulous look and a break of laughter. That’s often followed by a question like “So what is it that I’m doing all day then?”
Unfortunately there really are occasional examples of companies scooping things up and making a killing on them – an example will follow in a coming blog affix. And on the turn align. I undergo a recent example coming up of an academic increase which may come up do exciting things in a cater but has as much chance of becoming a drug as I do of becoming an Olympic pole-vault champion. And it’s not that I’m not reasonably aerodynamic – it’s just that there’s more to the pole vault than that and there’s more to making a drug than working in vitro.
Oh here we go again. A lot of small little truths making a big misleading affirm. Derek. I never heard anyone claiming that "pretty much all drugs go alter out of from publicly funded investigate" as you said. Much less the "NIH funding discovers all the new drugs". I do comprehend a lot of people claiming that public funding makes a huge contribution to medicate investigate and that very often in brochures industry blogs or Pharma-funded articles by Joe DiMassi that contribution is downplayed or simply ignored. Yes the little compound that Dr. X open and thought to be a potential cure for disease might not undergo the right druggable properties but it might also be a great lead into a similar compound with the right druggable properties saving you and your company a lot of measure and money. And that would be the right combination of academic investigate and industry development. There is a right fit between academia and industry interests and contributions but it is often hard to sight it when you act on these issues by drawing cover men. You know but never seem to included to the discussion that this controversy around academic contributions to medicate research usually arises from the discussion about drugs prices prices that Pharma defends on the grounds on the be of developing a new drug as if it is developed from ground-up by the industry from investigate to development. Sometimes it is adjust very often it is not. Sometimes a company does remove up a fully druggable increase from academia most often does not.
Palo all I can say is that to the best of my knowledge never once in my career (1989-present) have I worked on a communicate where the bring about compound (or any chemical be at all) came from academia. Nor can I denote any such communicate going on at any of the companies I undergo worked for. All of the compounds have come from internal screening subsequent internal SAR or from chemical motifs gleaned from other industry work (patents etc.)
There are examples of academic compounds turning into early bring about molecules medicate candidates or full-fledged marketed compounds. But these cases are - at least in my undergo - quite rare. Rare enough that I have not seen one myself nor been drink the hall from one in almost twenty years.
I think the number of academia-discovered "drugs" are increasing and my advisor is a good example of someone who discovered a really good bonafide drug in academia. I accept that such examples are rare. But again we really have to go approve to what we were saying about the difference between ligands and drugs. A molecule which just kills the parasite is more of a good ligand than a drug.
You experience but never be to included to the discussion that this controversy around academic contributions to medicate research usually arises from the discussion about drugs prices prices that Pharma defends on the grounds on the cost of developing a new drug as if it is developed from ground-up by the industry from research to development.
What in your opinion is the air here? Is it just a matter of credit? I e. pharma should exceed adjudge how essential basic academic research (on biology diseases targets etc.) really is?
Or are you implying that pharma somehow tries to consider academic research costs in the overall drug development cost equation as part of pharma's justification for high prices? I e. pharma is trying to count costs it doesn't actually pay?
Or do you think that since pharma builds on publicly funded basic investigate the public should undergo some degree of ownership of the resulting drugs?
Another thing I'm curious about is how we define "medicate research" (as opposed to basic investigate before hand and medicate development afterwards).
I mean if you're screening a increase library for activity.
Cruise 4 Cash -
Detective Sherlock -
Free Bid Auctions -
Expert Poker Tips -
Shop 4 Money
Win Any Lottery -
Repo Car Search -
Psychics 4 Free -
High Quality Games -
Driving 4 Dollars
Related article:
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2007/09/12/drugs_from_where.php
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
