1. LJStewartTweet on February 17, 2012 1:43 PM writes...

Derek. Nice panel discussion. I liked your question about how academic centers view themselves as drug discovery outfits, and the challenges to be successful in that effort.

Good point about "Pharmas as involuntary non-profits" through risky investments, while academia is making investments "like" a for-profit company in drug discovery, seeking a new source of revenues (grant and pharma).

I tend to agree with Rudy's point that it's hard to see how academic drug screening investements will pay off. As the marginal value of early stage drug assets is so low... But probably the pay off is more in the training of new scientists in both new technologies and how to collaborate with a variety of stakeholders.

Still despite the issues, I share John Reed's enthusiasm for how non-profit institute and academic centers can work with pharma cos.

The glass half-full view is that since pharma can't afford deep early insight into biology, and academia can't effectively translate their discoveries, the combination of efforts will find its synergistic path to speeding the identification of high value assets / insights.

2. LJStewartTweet on February 17, 2012 1:43 PM writes...

Derek. Nice panel discussion. I liked your question about how academic centers view themselves as drug discovery outfits, and the challenges to be successful in that effort.

Good point about "Pharmas as involuntary non-profits" through risky investments, while academia is making investments "like" a for-profit company in drug discovery, seeking a new source of revenues (grant and pharma).

I tend to agree with Rudy's point that it's hard to see how academic drug screening investements will pay off. As the marginal value of early stage drug assets is so low... But probably the pay off is more in the training of new scientists in both new technologies and how to collaborate with a variety of stakeholders.

Still despite the issues, I share John Reed's enthusiasm for how non-profit institute and academic centers can work with pharma cos.

The glass half-full view is that since pharma can't afford deep early insight into biology, and academia can't effectively translate their discoveries, the combination of efforts will find its synergistic path to speeding the identification of high value assets / insights.

3. dV on February 17, 2012 2:44 PM writes...

Interesting. But weird. Derek, what was your official role in this panel? I assume you were moderator/facilitator, but it really seemed like you gave more insights and opinions than any of the expert panelists - dishing out more 'answers' than questions. Not to say that you are not an expert, but I found the whole dynamic a little awkward.

4. RD IRL on February 19, 2012 3:03 PM writes...

Nice discussion Derek. I have a question around the possibility of getting academia involved after the failure of a drug candidate. For example, many of us have had projects pulled at a various stages of drug development following toxicity issues in later phases of clinical trials. These failures were missed earlier on in the development, and with understanding of disease or model at the time of development could not have been found. Having committed such resources to a programme, it seems a shame to lose most of the value.
It can sometimes be a huge intellectual and/or time consuming problem to understand the reason for the failure, and one which the pharma company may not wish to dedicate resources to. What if the problem was off loaded, with suitable IP protection for the company, to academic groups? These groups could be funded on a "problem solving" platform through government agencies. The PI has a nice practical project, the pharma company may recover some value appeasing shareholders, and the funding agency could secure jobs in the pharma industry should any results come of the post failure collaboration.
Just a thought, but I wonder has this model ever been attempted, or is there any room for it?

5. RJB on February 20, 2012 8:45 AM writes...

The second hour was more interesting. What struck me overall about the pael was a lack of acknowledgement about the impediments to these collaborations. Isn't the issue building understanding in the academia about pharma and vice-sersa to make the drug development process more efficient and effective. The challenge is great given how little most academics know about the commericial process needed to bring a compoubnd to market.

The panelists know this but seemed to be avoiding these difficulties

6. anonie on February 20, 2012 12:04 PM writes...

Derek ego stroking. Boring.

7. HelicalZz on February 21, 2012 11:04 AM writes...

Derek,

Thanks. I did listen to this a week or so ago. I have to admit that I found it disappointing. Issues were generally acknowledged (though not always), but I didn't sense much in the way of viewpoints changing. The missions will always be a bit at odds.

Zz

8. MoMo on February 21, 2012 10:05 PM writes...

I warned you. You were dealt a ridiculous hand here, wading in the stagnant pools of science, where big plant-eating dinosaurs were nibbling on the last vestiges or organic matter right before they die.

These are the scientists that forced drug-discovery-as-numbers down our throats.

And I see some of us have choked on them.

Repent Derek! Just for your sins you are to go and set up 4 reactions and do 7 chromatography runs! AND No more siding with enemy, Please! My brain can't take this anymore!

I have tears in my eyes--I gotta go.....