Corante

About this Author
Derek Lowe
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
MedChem Buzz
Kilomentor
On Pharma
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
One in Ten Thousand
Electron Pusher
Periodic Tabloid
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blog
Propter Doc
Chemiotics II
The Chemical Notebook
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
Chirality
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Drug Discovery Opinion
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
WSJ Health Blog
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Useful Chemistry
Chiral Jones
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Totally Synthetic
Fragment Literature
The F- Blog
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Carbon-Based Curiosities
Experimental Error
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Sigma-Aldrich ChemBlogs
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
P212121
ChemCafe
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
A Scientist's Life
Speculist
Cosmic Variance
The Capsule
Zeroth Order Approximation
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
Med Tech Sentinel
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
The Health Care Blog
Respectful Insolence
Black Triangle
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
Arnold Kling
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem
The Stalwart


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Tinkerty Tonk
Instapundit
Megan McArdle
Mickey Kaus
Colby Cosh
Alien Corn
No Watermelons


Belles Lettres
Two Blowhards
Critical Mass
Arts and Letters Daily
God of the Machine
Armavirumque
About Last Night
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

« Blogging About Science Blogging | Main | Experimental News »

August 15, 2005

Out the Door and Over the Edge

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Handing a compound over to the clinical development group is usually a reason to celebrate, but there can be times when you don't feel like getting out the party hats. Just as a novel is defined as a lengthy work of narrative fiction that has something wrong with it, a clinical candidate is always defective, too. Rarely does everyone on the team feel that the best compound was picked.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with that situation. Everyone feels that the compound with the best profile in their own specialty should have gone forward, and no one compound can do it all. Applied researchers and engineers the world over know that eventually you just have to get something out the door, rather than sending it around for another round of tweaking. There are always enough surprises waiting in the clinic. You'll never be able to plan for all of them, so you might as well get your compound out there and see what happens.

But sometimes there's a more justifiable reason for unhappiness, which can be summed up in the phrase "making your numbers." Many organizations have targets for how many projects they plan to launch each year, and how many they expect to take on to the clinic. (I wrote about this here in 2002.) What if you feel like your project is being pushed to the next phase just to meet an end-of-the-year target?

This kind of thing definitely happens, and I'm sure that my readers at the larger companies can confirm that. There are several possible outcomes. Sometimes things work out for the best, when it turns out the candidate compound was more ready for the clinic than anyone realized (or when it dies for reasons that no one could have foreseen.) In either of those cases, you're better off having found out.

But there really are times when a project needs a little longer in the oven. My advice in those situations is to fight the good fight, but know when to quit. Most projects are going to die in the clinic, anyway, sad to say, and you'll need to decide for yourself how much capital you want to spend advocating any particular one. Try to position the project as best you can if it has to go. Learn as much as you can from what happens to it in development, and see if that can be applied to a follow-up program. That one should have a better chance.

Of course, if your company is just tossing this over to the clinical side for the sake of doing it, not expecting them to actually develop the candidate, then you might not have a chance to learn much. But if that's what's happening, my advice is to take a look around. Is this a regular part of your company's culture? if it is, perhaps it's time to start looking elsewhere. We waste enough time, money, and effort in this industry without trying to. An outfit that's deliberately throwing stuff away has bigger problems than just your project.

Comments (1) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Drug Development


COMMENTS

1. jim p on August 16, 2005 1:46 PM writes...

Sad, but true, Derek. I don't think the use of metrics such as the number of clinical candidates per year will ever go away as long as pharma is run as a business. The thing is, the industry would best be served if the mindset were to change completely, and scientists were rewarded for killing bad drugs or bad programs/targets rather than simply for meeting arbitrary numbers. Everyone talks about reducing attrition rates, but I don't see it happening until there is a fundamental shift in overall corporate attitude.

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Academia and Industry, Suing Each Other
Let's Start Off the Meeting With An Ad, OK?
The Academic-Industrial Collaboration in Drug Discovery Panel: Today
Glass Structure, Atom by Atom
How the Andrulis Paper Got Published
AstraZeneca in Waltham
Fluorine NMR: Why Not?
AstraZeneca Layoffs and Closings