Comments on: Brain Trust: Universities & Pharma Tighten Alliances

By: Doc

Doc — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:31:11 +0000

No wonder Dr. Laurie Glimcher is for closer ties with pharma, she DOES sit on the Board of Directors of Bristol-Myers Squibb, just to assure everyone knows where her head is.

By: Salmon

Salmon — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:00:12 +0000

To find new drugs you need a target. Those targets have already been coming out of academia as well as from industry itself. Including understanding mechanisms of toxicities with older drugs, e.g. hepatotoxicity/hepatitis?.

There is a clear need for industry and academia to work together, however it should not come at the expense of academia or the public who then is paying for early development.

By: CMC guy

CMC guy — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:04:25 +0000

Is it about spreading the risk are seeking the best brains for the challenge of finding new drugs? Statement “goal is to accelerate the move from basic biology to drug targets and, ultimately, medicines” sounds reasonable that would want collaborations between academia and industry as the different focus’ and expertise’s needed to translate knowledge in to drugs. If these take the form of “for profit” Alliances that are negotiated agreements between parties for mutual benefit so should not have the conflicts of interest mantra that gets over play on this site because they are established relationships.

Most academics don’t understand much of the drug development process so should welcome interaction with those who can help guide them how their work can be made useful. UWs DeLuca wants the money and “academic freedom” without any direction that generally will lead to no where practical unless someone comes in to redirect or pick up the research to a meaningful objective.

By: BPW

BPW — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:28:07 +0000

In my mind, this is definitely not good. The two have been too cozy for a long time and such a movement will make it worse.

By: Justice in MI

Justice in MI — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:30:51 +0000

Indeed, this was in the cards, and is the kind of alliance that “sounds good” initially and appears to be profit-making for both sides (yes, universities care about profits too, and especially right now).

When industry and university become business partners, there are, indeed, a lot of good things that can happen. But all the issues that have been discussed here re: conflicts of commitment, principle, and transparency come into play. Big time.

By: An FDA reviewer

An FDA reviewer — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:03:42 +0000

This has been coming for a while and is part of Pharma’s spreading of the risk and costs of drug discovery and development.

Discovery under this model will still be coming out NIH research grants. Academia will then be doing early toxicology and human phase I and early phase II in collaboration with NIH and via NIH funding. This saves pharma from investing in so much early work that doesn’t pan out. Big pharma will then have dibs to come in and cherry pick the best for future development.

Just look at the companies involved in the science board at NIH and what’s been going on with NIH / Industry / and even The Reagan Udall drug development institute. Plus the use of datamining of FDA safety data to promote genetic tests, e.g. Crestor. Gee I wonder what drugs that are now out there cause stroke, heart attacks, and decreased mortality due to cardiovascular inflammation, especially in at risk populations or even children who might not otherwise be at risk.

An FDA Reviewer

By: Jack Friday

Jack Friday — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:21:14 +0000

Like the headline Ed.

My advice to Academia - if you have a brain don’t trust Big Pharma!