Glaxo Tries Shaking Up Its Flagging R&D
2 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 12th, 2007 // 9:48 am
Moncef Slaoui, who heads the drugmaker’s R&D efforts, plans to expand external partnerships and reduce the number of experiments during drug development in hopes of making meds “cheaper and faster,” The Financial Times reports.
He also predicted that, within a few years, half of Glaxo’s experimental drugs would come from external partners, compared with about one in 10 now. But the paper writes that investors are skeptical, and Slaoui concedes the drugmaker’s internal culture requires stilll more change. The idea, he tells the paper, is to re-emphasize science over management and encourage greater individual accountability.
He then criticized the “industrialized†model of R&D that he said had characterised the industry for 20 years. “Smaller is better, where people have ownership…and have nowhere to hide,†he tells the paper.
Then, referring to something he calls “differentiated developmentâ€, Slaoui says at least a fifth of the scientific questions currently asked were unnecessary. “In every single project we look at we could have reached the critical decision with….50 to 60 per cent fewer experiments,†he tells the Times. “In a bureaucracy…if you ask more questions, no one will blame you for not asking them. But we just can’t afford it. In the modern world we… generate lots of information we don’t know what to do with.â€
Well, Steve Nissen did have a suggestion about what could have been done with Avandia clinical trials… But that’s probably not what Slaoui meant.
Nathan
Slaoui raises a very good point about too many experiments. We do an awful lot of testing — hundreds of assays before something is even considered for clinical trials. But we really don’t know how to interpret those results. We view a negative result in one assay as predictive of a negative result in animal or clinical trials, but we have no way of testing that assumption.
Once a compound advances to a particular point, this questioning stops. That’s because no one wants to unnecessarily flag their compound with bad results that aren’t meaningful. Once a compound gets close to clinical trials, it seems that only truly meaningful questions (experiments) are asked. It’s in the early stage work where was ask question upon question upon question and don’t know what to do with all the information that we are generating.
Outsiders think we know a lot more about things than we really do. We can assay against every enzyme, receptor, and ion channel out there. But that doesn’t mean that the information is useful or relevant to the task at hand: good efficacy and low toxicity.
Lisa Van S
It not about Statute, its Location..