Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Cuprate Voodoo | Main | Very Wrong, or Very Right »

May 16, 2005

Days of Silicon and Roses

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I thought that everyone might enjoy a quick trip back to the past with me. In my files, turning a bit yellow around the edges, is a copy of a story from Business Week's May 13, 1991 issue. It's "The Search For Superdrugs: A Union of Biotech and Chemistry May Conquer the Great Killers." Hot stuff, eh? This appears to have been an attempt to introduce BW's readership to the idea of rational drug design, which had been a hot topic for several years at the time. It looks like the people at Vertex were a good source for the reporters:

"Boger (of Vertex) is at the vanguard of a revolutionary approach to drug development. Few drugmakers admit it, but privately their executives say traditional research techniques just don't cut it anymore. The old way - screening thousands of chemical in a hit-or-miss search - is inefficient and wastes time. That's why it can now cost more than $200 million to bring a drug to market."

My first reaction to this is, "Ah, for the good old days, when that's all it cost us." I also note that the one-foot-in-the-grave method of random screening is still very much with us. Vertex's venture-capital pitch back then seems to have been very much into screen-bashing, with the inference that their hot new rational technology would (arrow into the bulls-eye sound effect here) zzzzzZZZISH-thunk right into the target instead.

I also note that the whole point of the paragraph is nonsense. Even back in 1991, the time and effort of random screening contributed at most a few percent to the eventual price tag of a new drug. The last two sentences could just as plausibly read "The old way of installing tires - with compressed air and lug nuts - is inefficient and wastes time. That's why it can now cost more than $30,000 to buy a new SUV." Well, let's press on:

"Boger and others like him are carrying the flag for a new wave of R&D often called "rational drug design." Dozens of these entrepreneurs are consummating the long-awaited combination of biotechnology and chemistry - a union that promises to streamline and enhance drug development and reshape the biotech and pharmaceutical industries. This year, the first "superdrugs" from this marriage will enter human testing. "Everything is coming together," says Brook Byers, a biotechnology venture capitalist. "Chemistry and Biology together will create the drugs of the '90s."

Well, I can't argue with that statement, except by pointing out that Chemistry and Biology together created the drugs of the '70s and '80s, too. (Byers is very much still with us, by the way.) But this naturally leads one to ask: what are these superdrugs from 1991, and where are they today?

One that they mention is an RNAse H inhibitor from Agouron, which was a very neat place to visit in the early 1990s. There's no telling how many journalists went out there to put on goggles and watch models of molecules docking into models of proteins. Then they went back to write their stories and generally made a severe category mistake, thinking that they had been watching actual drug molecules docking into real proteins. While Agouron found some success against HIV protease, the whole RNAse H inhibitor idea has had a tough time of it, although people are still plugging away.

Another drug the article brings up is an glycoprotein IIb/IIIa compound for cardiovascular disease from Genentech. This, I assume, is what eventually turned into sibrafiban (PDF file). Unfortunately, that whole class of drugs didn't work out too well when compared head-to-head against aspirin, and that was pretty much that.

We'll leave aside, for now, the fact that all these folks were trying to compute their way to fame and riches with 1991 hardware, because it's not any easier with the latest 2005 stuff out of the box. Those two examples show you exactly why we're not awash in those wonderful 90's drugs right now. The most important parts of drug development are not yet amenable to a rational approach. We simply don't know enough. If any of the companies developing oral IIb/IIIa ligands thought there was a good chance that they'd lose out to aspirin, of all the cheap competitors, they'd have run away screaming. But they didn't know, and the only way to find out was to spend the money and take the risk. No fancy graphics could have saved them.

Comments (5) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Drug Industry History


COMMENTS

1. HighlyReactive on May 17, 2005 12:01 AM writes...

some time ago, I read about some guy who managed to get pharma interested in his startup based around the concept of computer simulations of cellular processes. I thought bullshit! if we can't simulate the small stuff accurately how can he pretend to simulate a whole complex system like a cell?

Permalink to Comment

2. Patrick on May 17, 2005 1:57 PM writes...

The first few years of Vertex' efforts into rational drug design are chronicled in The Billion Dollar Molecule. It's a great, fast-paced read and definitely touches on much of the nostalgia of the 90's - bold, charismatic young companies prophesizing the new wave of rational drug design. Highly recommended read.

Permalink to Comment

3. The Novice Chemist on May 17, 2005 6:49 PM writes...

That book may be responsible for guiding me away from being an X-ray crystallographer... Or a protein extractor, for that matter.

Permalink to Comment

4. jeet on May 18, 2005 2:36 PM writes...

I would say that the oral IIb/IIIa guys lost to clopidogrel which targets a similar receptor as asprin but comes with a different price tag. If clopidogrel didn't get on the market but an oral IIb/IIIa did, I would bet that it would have $1+ billion in sales for many of the same indications.

Here is a different question, do you use any of these technologies? Of course rational drug design (like so many other technologies) didn't solve pharma's problems, but as of 13 years later what has it changed?

Permalink to Comment

5. Reuben on May 18, 2005 3:33 PM writes...

Hello Mr. Boger again?, Remember Vertex buying an UHTS supplier called Aurora Biosciences, they were hedging their bets on brute force screening and yes they paid waaay too much for it. Hindsight is always 20/20. Here's wishing Boger and Co. @ Vertex another 20 years of hype!

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Scripps Update
What If Drug Patents Were Written Like Software Patents?
Stem Cells: The Center of "Right to Try"
Speaking of Polyphenols. . .
Dark Biology And Small Molecules
How Polyphenols Work, Perhaps?
More On Automated Medicinal Chemistry
Scripps Merging With USC?