Over the weekend, the drugmaker tried to grab some headlines at the American Heart Association meeting by releasing a statement that it remains committed to cardiovascular research, an area that its arch rival, Pfizer, recently decided to abandon (see back story). We spoke with Dick Pasternak, vp of cardiovascular clinical research at Merck Research Laboratories about the rationale for trumpeting its announcement…

Pharmalot: Why make this announcement? Nothing has changed.
Pasternak: There were a couple of things. From an internal perspective, after Pfizer make their announcement, people in my department and around Merck started asking what we are doing. And there’s a financial element to that, because people are worried about their jobs. Whether it’s Pfizer or other companies, they’re concerned about job reductions and strategic changes. So internal reasons, there was a need to reaffirm we’re committed and will continue to be committed.

And externally, for our existing partners and future partners, I think there’s a resaon to affirm our commitment so people recognize that we’re not changing what we do. Sure, the sun is still rising, so it’s not news in that sense. But there’s a third reason, and that is Merck is responding to customers - doctors and patients - and is responsible not only to shareholder, but also the public in an area where there is an unmet need.

Pharmalot: In discussing this elsewhere, you noted it would be ‘foolish and irresponsible’ to exit CV research now. Is that how Pfizer should be seen?
Pasternak: I don’t think it’s important to say we’re different or better, so look at us. We are what we are. It’s not about a competitive advantage in my mind. Rumors are flying. I’ve heard them at the AHA meeting this weekend. People are asking us if we’re cancelling this or that program. We need to say we are still committed. It’s not so much in contrast or against somebody else…There’s nothing internally spurring the rumors. It’s not a question of where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It’s a natural question to ask.

Pharmalot: Well, maybe CV research is too difficult?
Pasternak: The difficulties are in drug develplment - it’s an expensive, high-risk difficult business. Yes, there are some challenges in CV, but long term, I don’t think those are different in neuro or oncology. There are plenty of novel targets and pathways that need mining and can be approached.. CV is still the number one killer.

I respect business decisions and at the end of the day, we’re a business. But there really are opportunities to be smart about and talk about in a scientifically responsible way. I don’t mean to cast aspersions elsewhere. It’s too narrow, though, to look at any industry through just its bottom line. Of course, we have a responsibility to shareholders, but also a responsibility to improve public health.