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

« Holiday Break | Main | Well, Hose Me Down. . . »

January 5, 2009

New Year - I Hope!

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

In past years, around this time I’ve often done a look back at the previous year in the drug industry. I hope that no one will be disappointed if I scuttle that tradition, because honestly, I have no desire whatsoever to relive what drug research went through in 2008. It may have been the toughest year for industry scientists in the modern era – everyone I know struggles to find a comparison.

I’d rather spend my energies on 2009. Let’s just stipulate that 2008 was, on balance, horrendous: what does that tell us? How did we end up in this position, and how can we avoid more of the same? There’s a lot of arguing room in those questions, but I think that we can agree that the proximate cause is that we’re not coming up with enough good drugs. 2008, for all its ugliness, was a handful of good products away from being a decent year. Why were we short that handful?

You have to go back some years to answer a question like that, given the industry’s lead time. The projects that were begun in the mid-to-late 1990s are clearly not coming through in the way that everyone had hoped. Is it that our attrition rate has gone up, or have we just not taken enough things to the clinic, or some of each?

Let’s think about that first problem, which certainly seems to be real enough. Is it that the easy targets have all been worked over, leaving us with only the tough ones? I don’t think that’s the whole explanation, although that’s certainly part of it. Still, even some of the big drugs from years past wouldn’t have made it through our current structures. So are the hurdles set too high during development – that is, do we know too much about potential problems, without having learned a corresponding amount about how to fix them? That’s got to be a big factor, which leads to a New Year’s resolution: try to spend as much time fixing problems as finding them. That’s a hard one to live up to, but it’s a goal to work toward.

And if we’re going to talk about that latter number, we’re going to have to cut through the often artificial “projects advanced” figures that circulate inside companies. Anyone who’s been around this business has seen some long shots (and some outright losers) officially pushed forward just to make some year-end target. Now, long shots are fine. To a good approximation, everything we do is a long shot. And everything has to go to the clinic eventually (or die) – but we have to make sure that we’re not just checking boxes. So that’s another resolution: spend less time kidding ourselves.

Of course, there’s a flip side to the number of compounds going to the clinic. Could it be that we’re being too cautious, because we have too many potential worries (those high hurdles mentioned above)? Should we be taking more things forward? Well, that’s an expensive proposition, the way things are set up now. So here’s another hard-to-live-up-to resolution: find ways to go to the clinic without betting our shirts every time. That’s been a big focus the last few years (biomarkers, etc.), but we need every idea and technique we can think of (microdosing? Simulations, even?). The cost of getting answers in humans is getting too high for us to try out as many ideas as we need to.

And here's a less macro-scale resolution, which I plan to start putting into practice immediately: don't let fear run your research. Try some things that you aren't sure about. Take some chances. Put down some bets. I've got several that I've let sit in the should-I-do-this limbo for too long, and I'm going to do something about that. Join me?

Comments (12) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Clinical Trials | Drug Development | Drug Industry History | Who Discovers and Why


COMMENTS

1. Wavefunction on January 5, 2009 10:53 AM writes...

As far as guidelines for companies go, how about this one: "Don't insist on multibillion dollar blockbusters. Focusing on modest, niche markets is not all that bad. Don't drop a lead only because it may lead to a therapeutic targeting a small patient population"

Permalink to Comment

2. Petros on January 5, 2009 11:11 AM writes...

Wavefunction's point is valid. In the days when blockbusters were rare the key to commercial success was having a broad range of good selling products.

In the early 1990s Merck was top dog through such a strategy, then blockbusters or nothing became the mantra of the day and companies set high minimum annual sales targets when assessing the potential of development compounds

Permalink to Comment

3. fred on January 5, 2009 11:51 AM writes...

Whoa--if the problem is that we aren't coming up with enough drugs, laying off record numbers of med chemists hardly seems an even SLIGHTLY rational solution.

The problem is multifactorial:
1)patent expirys faster than approvals.
2) CYA at the FDA-- slow approvals; absurd black box labelling (e.g. Celebrex)
3) Yes, too many eggs in the a) kinase b) blockbuster basket.
4) Too many $ in advertising to consumers vs R&D. The practice should be banned.
5) over-reliance on biologicals. Perhaps bioequivalent generics can discourage this nasty emphasis, which isn't a good thing for EITHER med chem or the PATIENT.
6) Stupid CEO's who don't understand that China a rat hole that will NOT produce "better" or "faster", though it may APPEAR to produce "cheaper".
7) over-reliance on CRO in general, even by start-ups who should know better.

Permalink to Comment

4. Ben on January 5, 2009 12:57 PM writes...

Two points:
1. Derek's point about how its much easier to find problems than to fix them is very true, and its something everyone, regardless of field or industry, to strive for.

2. I think the problem with Wavefunction's point is that pharma R&D is still largely a scale game -- it requires massive scale to build the R&D and clinical infrastructure needed to succeed at the clinical trials/marketing game. Unless there's a way for us to "wean" big pharma/biotech off of blockbuster wins to build this infrastructure, these niche markets to chase won't ever be a priority.

Permalink to Comment

5. Hap on January 5, 2009 1:31 PM writes...

Going for nonblockbusters is a good idea if you can make clinical trial costs come close to scaling with market size, but I didn't think that costs came close to doing so. With smaller drugs, you have to spend lots up front to get them approved and it takes a while for you to break even unless you price them high. (I assume the same problem in worse form awaits personalized medicine - if your target population is really small, it will be hard to find them all and the drugs will need to be priced very high to make back the trial costs.)

I don't think DTC is costing pharmaceutical companies money that would otherwise go into R+D (I assume they wouldn't invest in it if it didn't make money for them overall), but I think it's cost them much of the trust that allows them to sell drugs and to sell them better than the competitors they are training here and overseas. Risk/rewards balances are difficult enough for doctors to calculate, much less random people, and if you sell lots of expensive drugs to people in whom they are unlikely to work well or to help them more than they hurt them, you look more and more like the supplement makers (who make their ads and supplements look druglike to make people think they've actually tested them like drugs). If people can't distinguish supplements from drugs (or assess them as equally trustworthy), I don't think pharmaceutical companies have done themselves any favors. Trust doesn't make you any money directly, but it's a barrier to entry for new drug companies (they have to earn trust), and losing trust when you have had it previously is almost worse than not have had it at all.

Permalink to Comment

6. Skeptic on January 5, 2009 2:44 PM writes...

There is no convincing analytical framework in place to understand biology. The mechanistic school brought over from physics is unsatisfying. You can flip through any book on systems biology and come to a perfectly sensible conclusion that its contents are unimportant. Everytime you pick up a copy of Nature Chemical Biology, you get the suspicion that the mathematical graph theorists are taking over. The big biology fanatics and their "measure everything" mandate ignite the wild imaginations of the data miners if nothing else.

I worry that biology research will turn into the boondoggle that is fusion research. "Leave us alone for 50 years with unlimited funds and we'll deliver the goods". Basically, thats all the medicinal chemists of today have to offer.

Permalink to Comment

7. Arf on January 5, 2009 3:03 PM writes...

I agree that 2008 was a horrendous year to be in Drug Discovery but my question to all R&D scientists is this - doesn't anyone feel a sense of personal failure regarding the lack of good new drugs?

Permalink to Comment

8. anon on January 5, 2009 3:29 PM writes...

"doesn't anyone feel a sense of personal failure regarding the lack of good new drugs?"

Success is exactly what killed us; we were acquired. I suppose this means mediocrity is the new "sweet spot".

Permalink to Comment

9. Hap on January 5, 2009 4:26 PM writes...

Felling a sense of failure for the lack of new drugs is probably unhelpful (you can't control the pipeline, only what you can do). In addition, when acquired companies are rendered into fodder for their successes and the facilities that develop sucessful drugs are repaid for their sucesses with repurposing as biotech incubators and landfills, it's kind of hard to expect people to take failure seriously. When managers are rewarded for failure and employees are penalized for success, it would seem to be hard to feel sorrow for the lack of drugs (positive outcomes).

If you selectively breed companies for their lack of products (acquire/kill productive company/wash, rinse, repeat), what exactly do you expect to come out in the end?

Permalink to Comment

10. Hap on January 5, 2009 6:59 PM writes...

Well, 2009 is already starting well. Pharmalot is going away. (I guess newspapers have been doing worse than pharmaceutical companies for a long time.) New frontiers for unemployment are opening up.

I'm wondering how to explain "held a change cup on the OSU campus" or "hunted deer near father-in-law's house" on my resume.

Permalink to Comment

11. Retread on January 5, 2009 9:17 PM writes...

Not to worry. Upcoming post #4 on Chemiotics in the Skeptical Chymist, will describe a new class of drugs whose exploration and development (if any one of them works) which will employ legions of synthetic chemists, molecular modelers, etc, etc. If I write about it here, I won't be able to write about it there.

Hopefully this year will be better for you guys (and girls), but it doens't look promising so far.

Permalink to Comment

12. Chilly on January 5, 2009 11:20 PM writes...

"Don't let fear run your research."

If I work for a big company the executives will get all the credit if it works out. They'll then look for ways to outsource my job.

If I work for a small company, I get fired when the company is acquired.

Not sure where I'm supposed to relax. Possibly Derek is scarfing down prozac? Getting high on his own supply?

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
XKCD on Protein Folding
The 2014 Chemistry Nobel: Beating the Diffraction Limit
German Pharma, Or What's Left of It
Sunesis Fails with Vosaroxin
A New Way to Estimate a Compound's Chances?
Meinwald Honored
Molecular Biology Turns Into Chemistry
Speaking at Northeastern