Big Pharma Not Into Discovery?
Wednesday November 14, 2007
I recently read a comment that there seems to be a trend towards big pharma leaving the discovery process to smaller companies, as they are finding it isn't necessarily their core competency. This bodes well for smaller discovery-based startups whose financial strategy is to obtain VC funding with an eye to a future exit, pending licencing or other agreements with larger firms. I invite anyone with an opinion on this perceived trend, and how it might affect your business, to please feel free to post a comment.
Comments
What you call “big pharma” has found a convenient way around the public relations problems you cite, with the companies “leaving the discovery process to smaller companies.” They simply claim that they (the pharmaceutical industry) has converged with (assimilated) the biotechnology/biopharmaceutical industry, i.e., all of the smaller, R&D-intensive, entrepreneurial companies involved in drug and biopharmaceutical discovery and development. They claim, as a result of this, that the industry (big pharma) has been transformed and is now the ‘biopharmaceutical’ industry.’ For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA), the trade association largely representing big pharma in the U.S., now calls itself and the industry “America’s biopharmaceutical research companies.” Note, the emphasis on ‘bio’ and ‘research.’ And, all pharmaceuticals are now referred to as biopharmaceuticals (i.e., they’ve totally coopted the term for themselves). This renaming of the industry as ‘biopharmaceutical’ is even used in the title of annual and other reports and press releases about industry/members’ R&D, approvals, etc. PhRMA plainly states that “Biotechnology + Pharmaceutical = Biopharmaceutical,” with ‘+’ here meaning union (while biopharmaceuticals classically involve biological products manufactured using biotechnology (living organisms), i.e., the intersection of ‘biotech’ and ‘pharmaceutical’). For further discussion of this, see part 2 of my article, “What is a Biopharmaceutical?” (accessible at www.biopharmacopeia.com).
I recently sent multiple requests to PR and technical staff within PhRMA requesting any information about their definition or that explains ‘biopharmaceutical.’ I crudely/rudely received no response. But then, one should not expect substantive information from trade associations, e.g., similarly, a BIO representative stated that they currently recognize no definition for ‘biotechnology’ (with BIO very clearly extending ‘biotech’ to include as much or even all life sciences research as they can get away with [i.e., biotech, which classically involves biological products manufactured using live organisms (bioprocessing), now somehow also includes just about all life sciences research].
Basically, PhRMA takes a top-down approach, claiming everything innovative or biotech (including as broadly redefined by BIO), while BIO takes a bottom-up approach, claiming everything involving research, along with the actual biotechnology industry, including all life sciences companies and research other than big pharma. Needless to say, in addition to actual biopharmaceuticals, both PhRMA and BIO both now report (claim credit for) small molecule drugs as being biopharmaceuticals, e.g., in BIO’s most recent review of FDA “biotech drug” approvals, 100 of 254 products listed are small molecule drugs (from member, thus biotech, companies and, thus, biopharmaceuticals).
MAXIDEX WARNING
I had eye aurgery and in the post-op pack was MAXIDEX(dexamethasone) drops by ALCON LABS.
Two days later I was BLIND
Use Google and enter EPOCRATES MAXIDEX to verify
OR CALL 800-757-9195