Whitepaper exploring the root causes behind Pharma Industry's widening Innovation Gap and discusses several R&D innovation models for addressing the productivity conundrum.
Pharmaceutical Contract Manufacturing Opportunities Published In Chemical W...jeffry6666
Thought Note on Emerging Opportunities in Pharmaceutical Contract Manufacturing in India. Published in Chemical weekly magazine and IndiaChem 08 International Conference and Exhibition
Fostering the Quality Based CMO-Sponsor RelationshipAjinomoto Althea
Althea Technologies' Sr. VP of Quality and Regulatory, EJ Brandreth, talks about life in the CMO world from the quality perspective. In this presentation, he discusses the regulations involved in biologics manufacturing and fill finish operations, and the importance of establishing a quality based partnership between CMOs and sponsors.
India is the largest producer of Generic drugs globally and a major supplier of vaccines. For India, this industry earns significant trade surplus and FDI. Let us talk about this industry.
Thinking Beyond Compliance Medical Device WhitepaperJenna Dudevoir
This white paper is based on a research study with leading medical device companies - from startups to multibillion dollar enterprises - to explore how they are balancing new product development with compliance requirements.
Advances and investment in digital health is growing at an incredible rate and Contract Manufacturing Organizations and Contract Development and Manufacturing Organizations are becoming an essential part of the new pharma value chain. From wearables, to apps, to digital platforms, the data and efficiencies generated by these innovations are opening up important avenues across the pharma ecosystem. As pressure on improving drug development heats up, data, digital and technological innovations are critical to delivering the desired business and patient outcomes, promoting significantly more networking and outsourcing strategies. CMOs are evolving from service providers to strategic partners. CMOs now cover the entire value chain of pharma production, including specialized services such as R&D.
The Business Of Biotech - Opportunities For Indian Biosimilars : Kapil Khande...Kapil Khandelwal (KK)
The document discusses opportunities for Indian biosimilar players in four key areas: products, services, technology, and applications. It notes that while biosimilars are usually thought of as products, opportunities also exist in technology development, services like drug development and manufacturing, and applications for diseases prevalent in India. However, Indian players face regulatory hurdles in major markets and need significant investment to develop biosimilars and compete globally.
The document discusses emerging business and operational models in the pharmaceutical industry. It notes that the traditional vertically integrated model is shifting to a more fragmented model. It also discusses factors driving changes like rising costs and competition. The document analyzes current blockbuster and niche models and potential future models involving more specialization. It proposes a "progressive drug development model" to reduce risks and costs through targeted development.
Pharmaceutical Contract Manufacturing Opportunities Published In Chemical W...jeffry6666
Thought Note on Emerging Opportunities in Pharmaceutical Contract Manufacturing in India. Published in Chemical weekly magazine and IndiaChem 08 International Conference and Exhibition
Fostering the Quality Based CMO-Sponsor RelationshipAjinomoto Althea
Althea Technologies' Sr. VP of Quality and Regulatory, EJ Brandreth, talks about life in the CMO world from the quality perspective. In this presentation, he discusses the regulations involved in biologics manufacturing and fill finish operations, and the importance of establishing a quality based partnership between CMOs and sponsors.
India is the largest producer of Generic drugs globally and a major supplier of vaccines. For India, this industry earns significant trade surplus and FDI. Let us talk about this industry.
Thinking Beyond Compliance Medical Device WhitepaperJenna Dudevoir
This white paper is based on a research study with leading medical device companies - from startups to multibillion dollar enterprises - to explore how they are balancing new product development with compliance requirements.
Advances and investment in digital health is growing at an incredible rate and Contract Manufacturing Organizations and Contract Development and Manufacturing Organizations are becoming an essential part of the new pharma value chain. From wearables, to apps, to digital platforms, the data and efficiencies generated by these innovations are opening up important avenues across the pharma ecosystem. As pressure on improving drug development heats up, data, digital and technological innovations are critical to delivering the desired business and patient outcomes, promoting significantly more networking and outsourcing strategies. CMOs are evolving from service providers to strategic partners. CMOs now cover the entire value chain of pharma production, including specialized services such as R&D.
The Business Of Biotech - Opportunities For Indian Biosimilars : Kapil Khande...Kapil Khandelwal (KK)
The document discusses opportunities for Indian biosimilar players in four key areas: products, services, technology, and applications. It notes that while biosimilars are usually thought of as products, opportunities also exist in technology development, services like drug development and manufacturing, and applications for diseases prevalent in India. However, Indian players face regulatory hurdles in major markets and need significant investment to develop biosimilars and compete globally.
The document discusses emerging business and operational models in the pharmaceutical industry. It notes that the traditional vertically integrated model is shifting to a more fragmented model. It also discusses factors driving changes like rising costs and competition. The document analyzes current blockbuster and niche models and potential future models involving more specialization. It proposes a "progressive drug development model" to reduce risks and costs through targeted development.
A brief introduction of the outsourcing methods in Pharma Supply Chain, Types of Outsourcing, Framework to decide correct outsourcing partner, factors to consider while selecting a partner, Process of outsourcing and Outsourcing models.
Galenica Group pursues a strategy of long-term growth through diversification across complementary healthcare sectors including pharma, logistics, retail, and healthcare information. This creates synergies and distributes risk effectively. The analysis shows Galenica outperforms pure players in these sectors by 37% due to synergies from operating across the value chain and leveraging strategic resources like bargaining power, reputation, and healthcare market knowledge. Recommendations include continuing international expansion in pharma and logistics to control more of the value chain abroad, strengthening national positions, and developing through strategic alliances initially before potential acquisitions to gain control while managing risks and costs. Corporate governance is currently effective but succession planning is needed as the CEO
Merck Paper Securities and Protfolio AnalysisJason Sandoy
Merck & Co. is a large pharmaceutical company that produces many drugs across different medical fields. The report recommends buying Merck stock based on its large drug pipeline, cost savings initiatives, and undervaluation relative to estimates. Merck allocates billions to research and development each year to develop new drugs and maintain a diverse portfolio to drive future growth. While some ratios show Merck lagging competitors, its growth rates exceed industry averages, and initiatives to reduce costs are expected to increase returns. Overall the report finds Merck positioned for continued growth and profitability.
Global Pharmaceutical Contract Manufacturing Resource Pack 2011Veronica Araujo
This document provides an overview of the global pharmaceutical contract manufacturing industry. It discusses key reasons why pharmaceutical companies outsource manufacturing, including lack of internal capacity, expertise, and the potential for cost savings. The most commonly outsourced areas of production are finished medicines. Emerging markets like India, China, and others offer lower costs and are attractive outsourcing destinations. However, outsourcing also presents challenges such as language/cultural barriers, meeting regulatory/quality requirements, and managing distant relationships. Overall, cost savings remain the top motivation for the 60% of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical manufacturing that is outsourced globally.
1st Riyadh Marketing Club (Introduction to Business Development Management) ...Mahmoud Bahgat
#Mahmoud_Bahgat
#Marketing_Club
Join us by WhatsApp to me 00966568654916
*اشترك في صفحة ال Marketing Club* عالفيسبوك
https://www.facebook.com/MarketingTipsPAGE/
*اشترك في جروب ال Marketing Club* عالفيسبوك
https://www.facebook.com/groups/837318003074869/
*Marketing Club Middle East*
25 Meetings in 6 Cities in 1 year & 2 months
Since October 2015
*We have 6 groups whatsapp*
*for almost 600 marketers*
From all middle east
*since 5 years*
& now 10 more groups
For Marketing Club Lovers as future Marketers
أهم حاجة الشروط
*Only marketers*
From all Industries
No students
*No sales*
*No hotels Reps*
*No restaurants Reps*
*No Travel Agents*
*No Advertising Agencies*
*Many have asked to Attend the Club*
((We Wish All can Attend,But Cant..))
*Criteria of Marketing Club Members*
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
For Better Harmony & Mind set.
*Must be only Marketer*
*Also Previous Marketing experience*
●Business Managers
●Country Manager,GM
●Directors, CEO
Are most welcomed to add Value to us.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
《 *Unmatched Criteria*》
Not Med Rep,
Not Key Account,
Not Product Specialist,
Not Sales Supervisor,
Not Sales Manager,
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
But till you become a marketer
you can join other What'sApp group
*Marketing Lover Future Club Group*
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
《 *Unmatched Criteria*》
For Conflict of Intrest
*Also Can't attend*
If Working in
*Marketing Services Provider*
=not *Hotel* Marketers
=not *Restaurant* Marketers
=not *Advertising* Marketer
=not *Event Manager*
=not *Market Researcher*.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
*this Club for Only Marketers*
Very Soon we will have
*Business Leaders Club*
For Sales Managers & Directors
Will be Not for Markters
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
■ *Only Marketers* ■
*& EPS Marketing Diploma*
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
Confirm coming by Pvt WhatsApp
*To know the new Location*
*#Mahmoud_Bahgat*
00966568654916
*#Marketing_Club*
http://goo.gl/forms/RfskGzDslP
*اشترك بصفحة جمعية الصيادلة المصريين* عالفيسبوك
https://lnkd.in/fucnv_5
■ *Bahgat Facbook Page*
https://lnkd.in/fVAdubA
■ *Bahgat Linkedin*
https://lnkd.in/fvDQXuG
■ *Bahgat Twitter*
https://lnkd.in/fmNC72T
■ *Bahgat YouTube Channel*
https://www.Youtube.com /mahmoud bahgat
■ *Bahgat Instagram*
https://lnkd.in/fmWPXrY
■ *Bahgat SnapChat*
https://lnkd.in/f6GR-mR
*#Mahmoud_Bahgat*
*#Legendary_ADLAND*
www.TheLegendary.info
Evolving Operational Business Model in Pharmaceutical IndustrySurya Chitra,PhD MBA
The pharmaceutical industry is changing its business and operational models due to various pressures. The current model of vertical integration from research to pharmacy is shifting to a more fragmented model. Key drivers include rising costs, price pressures, increased regulation, and patent expirations. The industry must address these issues to sustain growth and profits. Alternative business strategies are needed due to instability in the current blockbuster drug model, which relies on a few highly profitable drugs to offset research and development costs.
Synthon, The Value Chain of a specialty pharmaceutical companyHealth Valley
Synthon is a specialty pharmaceutical company with a history of success in generic small molecules. It has over 1,250 employees across 9 countries and has expanded through acquisitions and new offices globally. Synthon aims to climb the pharmaceutical ladder by developing life cycle products, biosimilars, and new biological entities using its expertise in research and development, production, and regulatory affairs. It provides an integrated solution for partners through its value chain and seeks emerging market growth and focus in therapeutic areas.
There has been an increase in R&D spending but a decline in research productivity, potentially leaving drug developers with insufficient pipelines. Mergers and acquisitions have aimed to strengthen pipelines and gain scale but larger companies now focus on blockbuster drugs. Licensing has become a major source of new products for large pharmaceutical companies and deals are occurring earlier in development stages.
The contract research organization (CRO) industry is a multi-billion dollar industry that is expected to grow substantially over the next five years. There are over 1,000 CROs globally, ranging in size from small firms to large publicly traded companies. The top five CROs capture over a third of total industry revenue, suggesting market consolidation. Growth in the industry is driven by increasing complexity and size of clinical trials, globalization of drug development, and pharmaceutical industry cost containment pressures that encourage further outsourcing of services.
Pharmaceutical Industry Environmental Analysis (Sanofi, Merck & Co.)Steven Sabo
The document is a letter of transmittal from a team of students to their professors submitting a report analyzing the global pharmaceutical companies Merck & Co. and Sanofi. The team's analysis identified three key success factors for companies in the industry and concluded that based on these factors, Sanofi is currently in a better position than Merck & Co. to succeed. The letter requests feedback from the professors and offers to further discuss the report and its analyses and recommendations.
The pharmaceutical industry is shifting away from the traditional blockbuster drug model towards new business models. Long term strategies include adopting an integrated model that bundles drugs, healthcare services, and medical devices. Companies are also focusing on personalized drugs, disease management, and partnerships with biotech firms. Short term strategies involve semi-blockbuster portfolios, pre- and post-patent competition, and network-based research models relying more on outsourcing.
This document provides an overview of the pharmaceutical market and industry analysis. It discusses key topics such as the product life cycle, competitive strategies, value and pricing, and marketing strategies. Specific content includes descriptions of the pharmaceutical industry landscape, regulations, R&D processes, major therapeutic areas, spending trends, competitor types, strategic alliances, and valuation methods. Evaluation models like PEST analysis, Porter's five forces, and the 3C framework are also introduced for analyzing the industry environment and competition.
The document analyzes Merck and Sanofi against key success factors in the pharmaceutical industry. It identifies the three main success factors as strategic mergers and acquisitions, capitalizing on growth opportunities in areas like diabetes and oncology, and navigating the patent process. After evaluating the companies on these factors, the analysis concludes that Merck is currently in a more favorable position compared to Sanofi.
The document discusses marketing strategies used by pharmaceutical companies. It notes that companies are shifting from acute therapies to focusing more on chronic therapies. This represents a long-term strategy change as chronic therapies require doctors to prescribe the same drugs for longer periods. The document also outlines some of the challenges pharmaceutical companies face in marketing to different customers in the supply chain from doctors to patients. It discusses strategies around patents, research and development, and pursuing either a "super core" model focused on a small number of chronic drugs or a "core" model marketing more acute drugs.
Future Pharma Trends - Long-term opportunities tempered by short-term challengesscottosur
An overview of the key trends shaping the pharmaceutical industry today, and those that are set to play a central role in the future, as companies transition towards a new business model: Pharma 2.0.
Provides key strategies and trends shaping the future of the pharmaceutical industry. Examines the impact of the Obama administration on US healthcare, and the implications for Pharma. Assesses the implications of the current economic and financial situation on healthcare. Analyzes key growth drivers and resistors set to shape Pharma\'s future.
Contact me at sosur@datamonitor.com to learn more!
This document summarizes research examining factors that impact the valuation of biotechnology firms. It finds that advancement of drugs through clinical trials is associated with increased firm value, while drug failures are associated with decreased value. Surprisingly, partnerships and alliances do not seem to result in better performance than independent firms. The presence of medical doctors on boards of directors is associated with higher valuation metrics. Small cap biotech firms seem less likely to get drug approvals, possibly because promising small firms are acquired. Higher approval rates are seen for AIDS/cancer drugs and when financiers make up more of the board.
This document summarizes a roundtable discussion between experts on current trends in pharmaceutical outsourcing. The experts discussed how consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry has led to CMOs focusing more on becoming full-service partners. They noted key drivers for outsourcing have shifted from cost to quality, speed, and gaining specialized expertise. CMOs need to invest in new technologies, maintain high quality, and form strategic partnerships to remain competitive in this evolving landscape. Effective communication and understanding between partners is important for developing win-win relationships. Globalization also presents challenges for outsourcing that require addressing regulatory and quality issues across different markets.
The pharmaceutical industry is shifting away from the blockbuster drug model. Large pharmaceutical companies are using mergers and acquisitions to adapt, with some acquiring generic drug makers or biotech companies. This provides access to new markets and revenue streams but carries risks as generics have low margins. Companies are also collaborating more within the industry and beyond to innovate new business models and remain profitable in changing times.
This document summarizes analysis of unpartnered pharmaceutical products from Medtrack in September 2015. It finds that opportunities remain abundant, with many preclinical and early-stage candidates in private company pipelines as well as late-stage candidates in public company pipelines. Oncology remains the leading therapeutic area for unpartnered drugs. Several private and public companies are highlighted that have significant unpartnered pipelines that could be candidates for partnership or acquisition deals. The document analyzes Phase III candidates in more detail and finds some oncology drugs that have above average likelihood of approval based on proprietary modeling.
A brief introduction of the outsourcing methods in Pharma Supply Chain, Types of Outsourcing, Framework to decide correct outsourcing partner, factors to consider while selecting a partner, Process of outsourcing and Outsourcing models.
Galenica Group pursues a strategy of long-term growth through diversification across complementary healthcare sectors including pharma, logistics, retail, and healthcare information. This creates synergies and distributes risk effectively. The analysis shows Galenica outperforms pure players in these sectors by 37% due to synergies from operating across the value chain and leveraging strategic resources like bargaining power, reputation, and healthcare market knowledge. Recommendations include continuing international expansion in pharma and logistics to control more of the value chain abroad, strengthening national positions, and developing through strategic alliances initially before potential acquisitions to gain control while managing risks and costs. Corporate governance is currently effective but succession planning is needed as the CEO
Merck Paper Securities and Protfolio AnalysisJason Sandoy
Merck & Co. is a large pharmaceutical company that produces many drugs across different medical fields. The report recommends buying Merck stock based on its large drug pipeline, cost savings initiatives, and undervaluation relative to estimates. Merck allocates billions to research and development each year to develop new drugs and maintain a diverse portfolio to drive future growth. While some ratios show Merck lagging competitors, its growth rates exceed industry averages, and initiatives to reduce costs are expected to increase returns. Overall the report finds Merck positioned for continued growth and profitability.
Global Pharmaceutical Contract Manufacturing Resource Pack 2011Veronica Araujo
This document provides an overview of the global pharmaceutical contract manufacturing industry. It discusses key reasons why pharmaceutical companies outsource manufacturing, including lack of internal capacity, expertise, and the potential for cost savings. The most commonly outsourced areas of production are finished medicines. Emerging markets like India, China, and others offer lower costs and are attractive outsourcing destinations. However, outsourcing also presents challenges such as language/cultural barriers, meeting regulatory/quality requirements, and managing distant relationships. Overall, cost savings remain the top motivation for the 60% of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical manufacturing that is outsourced globally.
1st Riyadh Marketing Club (Introduction to Business Development Management) ...Mahmoud Bahgat
#Mahmoud_Bahgat
#Marketing_Club
Join us by WhatsApp to me 00966568654916
*اشترك في صفحة ال Marketing Club* عالفيسبوك
https://www.facebook.com/MarketingTipsPAGE/
*اشترك في جروب ال Marketing Club* عالفيسبوك
https://www.facebook.com/groups/837318003074869/
*Marketing Club Middle East*
25 Meetings in 6 Cities in 1 year & 2 months
Since October 2015
*We have 6 groups whatsapp*
*for almost 600 marketers*
From all middle east
*since 5 years*
& now 10 more groups
For Marketing Club Lovers as future Marketers
أهم حاجة الشروط
*Only marketers*
From all Industries
No students
*No sales*
*No hotels Reps*
*No restaurants Reps*
*No Travel Agents*
*No Advertising Agencies*
*Many have asked to Attend the Club*
((We Wish All can Attend,But Cant..))
*Criteria of Marketing Club Members*
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
For Better Harmony & Mind set.
*Must be only Marketer*
*Also Previous Marketing experience*
●Business Managers
●Country Manager,GM
●Directors, CEO
Are most welcomed to add Value to us.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
《 *Unmatched Criteria*》
Not Med Rep,
Not Key Account,
Not Product Specialist,
Not Sales Supervisor,
Not Sales Manager,
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
But till you become a marketer
you can join other What'sApp group
*Marketing Lover Future Club Group*
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
《 *Unmatched Criteria*》
For Conflict of Intrest
*Also Can't attend*
If Working in
*Marketing Services Provider*
=not *Hotel* Marketers
=not *Restaurant* Marketers
=not *Advertising* Marketer
=not *Event Manager*
=not *Market Researcher*.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
*this Club for Only Marketers*
Very Soon we will have
*Business Leaders Club*
For Sales Managers & Directors
Will be Not for Markters
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
■ *Only Marketers* ■
*& EPS Marketing Diploma*
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
Confirm coming by Pvt WhatsApp
*To know the new Location*
*#Mahmoud_Bahgat*
00966568654916
*#Marketing_Club*
http://goo.gl/forms/RfskGzDslP
*اشترك بصفحة جمعية الصيادلة المصريين* عالفيسبوك
https://lnkd.in/fucnv_5
■ *Bahgat Facbook Page*
https://lnkd.in/fVAdubA
■ *Bahgat Linkedin*
https://lnkd.in/fvDQXuG
■ *Bahgat Twitter*
https://lnkd.in/fmNC72T
■ *Bahgat YouTube Channel*
https://www.Youtube.com /mahmoud bahgat
■ *Bahgat Instagram*
https://lnkd.in/fmWPXrY
■ *Bahgat SnapChat*
https://lnkd.in/f6GR-mR
*#Mahmoud_Bahgat*
*#Legendary_ADLAND*
www.TheLegendary.info
Evolving Operational Business Model in Pharmaceutical IndustrySurya Chitra,PhD MBA
The pharmaceutical industry is changing its business and operational models due to various pressures. The current model of vertical integration from research to pharmacy is shifting to a more fragmented model. Key drivers include rising costs, price pressures, increased regulation, and patent expirations. The industry must address these issues to sustain growth and profits. Alternative business strategies are needed due to instability in the current blockbuster drug model, which relies on a few highly profitable drugs to offset research and development costs.
Synthon, The Value Chain of a specialty pharmaceutical companyHealth Valley
Synthon is a specialty pharmaceutical company with a history of success in generic small molecules. It has over 1,250 employees across 9 countries and has expanded through acquisitions and new offices globally. Synthon aims to climb the pharmaceutical ladder by developing life cycle products, biosimilars, and new biological entities using its expertise in research and development, production, and regulatory affairs. It provides an integrated solution for partners through its value chain and seeks emerging market growth and focus in therapeutic areas.
There has been an increase in R&D spending but a decline in research productivity, potentially leaving drug developers with insufficient pipelines. Mergers and acquisitions have aimed to strengthen pipelines and gain scale but larger companies now focus on blockbuster drugs. Licensing has become a major source of new products for large pharmaceutical companies and deals are occurring earlier in development stages.
The contract research organization (CRO) industry is a multi-billion dollar industry that is expected to grow substantially over the next five years. There are over 1,000 CROs globally, ranging in size from small firms to large publicly traded companies. The top five CROs capture over a third of total industry revenue, suggesting market consolidation. Growth in the industry is driven by increasing complexity and size of clinical trials, globalization of drug development, and pharmaceutical industry cost containment pressures that encourage further outsourcing of services.
Pharmaceutical Industry Environmental Analysis (Sanofi, Merck & Co.)Steven Sabo
The document is a letter of transmittal from a team of students to their professors submitting a report analyzing the global pharmaceutical companies Merck & Co. and Sanofi. The team's analysis identified three key success factors for companies in the industry and concluded that based on these factors, Sanofi is currently in a better position than Merck & Co. to succeed. The letter requests feedback from the professors and offers to further discuss the report and its analyses and recommendations.
The pharmaceutical industry is shifting away from the traditional blockbuster drug model towards new business models. Long term strategies include adopting an integrated model that bundles drugs, healthcare services, and medical devices. Companies are also focusing on personalized drugs, disease management, and partnerships with biotech firms. Short term strategies involve semi-blockbuster portfolios, pre- and post-patent competition, and network-based research models relying more on outsourcing.
This document provides an overview of the pharmaceutical market and industry analysis. It discusses key topics such as the product life cycle, competitive strategies, value and pricing, and marketing strategies. Specific content includes descriptions of the pharmaceutical industry landscape, regulations, R&D processes, major therapeutic areas, spending trends, competitor types, strategic alliances, and valuation methods. Evaluation models like PEST analysis, Porter's five forces, and the 3C framework are also introduced for analyzing the industry environment and competition.
The document analyzes Merck and Sanofi against key success factors in the pharmaceutical industry. It identifies the three main success factors as strategic mergers and acquisitions, capitalizing on growth opportunities in areas like diabetes and oncology, and navigating the patent process. After evaluating the companies on these factors, the analysis concludes that Merck is currently in a more favorable position compared to Sanofi.
The document discusses marketing strategies used by pharmaceutical companies. It notes that companies are shifting from acute therapies to focusing more on chronic therapies. This represents a long-term strategy change as chronic therapies require doctors to prescribe the same drugs for longer periods. The document also outlines some of the challenges pharmaceutical companies face in marketing to different customers in the supply chain from doctors to patients. It discusses strategies around patents, research and development, and pursuing either a "super core" model focused on a small number of chronic drugs or a "core" model marketing more acute drugs.
Future Pharma Trends - Long-term opportunities tempered by short-term challengesscottosur
An overview of the key trends shaping the pharmaceutical industry today, and those that are set to play a central role in the future, as companies transition towards a new business model: Pharma 2.0.
Provides key strategies and trends shaping the future of the pharmaceutical industry. Examines the impact of the Obama administration on US healthcare, and the implications for Pharma. Assesses the implications of the current economic and financial situation on healthcare. Analyzes key growth drivers and resistors set to shape Pharma\'s future.
Contact me at sosur@datamonitor.com to learn more!
This document summarizes research examining factors that impact the valuation of biotechnology firms. It finds that advancement of drugs through clinical trials is associated with increased firm value, while drug failures are associated with decreased value. Surprisingly, partnerships and alliances do not seem to result in better performance than independent firms. The presence of medical doctors on boards of directors is associated with higher valuation metrics. Small cap biotech firms seem less likely to get drug approvals, possibly because promising small firms are acquired. Higher approval rates are seen for AIDS/cancer drugs and when financiers make up more of the board.
This document summarizes a roundtable discussion between experts on current trends in pharmaceutical outsourcing. The experts discussed how consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry has led to CMOs focusing more on becoming full-service partners. They noted key drivers for outsourcing have shifted from cost to quality, speed, and gaining specialized expertise. CMOs need to invest in new technologies, maintain high quality, and form strategic partnerships to remain competitive in this evolving landscape. Effective communication and understanding between partners is important for developing win-win relationships. Globalization also presents challenges for outsourcing that require addressing regulatory and quality issues across different markets.
The pharmaceutical industry is shifting away from the blockbuster drug model. Large pharmaceutical companies are using mergers and acquisitions to adapt, with some acquiring generic drug makers or biotech companies. This provides access to new markets and revenue streams but carries risks as generics have low margins. Companies are also collaborating more within the industry and beyond to innovate new business models and remain profitable in changing times.
This document summarizes analysis of unpartnered pharmaceutical products from Medtrack in September 2015. It finds that opportunities remain abundant, with many preclinical and early-stage candidates in private company pipelines as well as late-stage candidates in public company pipelines. Oncology remains the leading therapeutic area for unpartnered drugs. Several private and public companies are highlighted that have significant unpartnered pipelines that could be candidates for partnership or acquisition deals. The document analyzes Phase III candidates in more detail and finds some oncology drugs that have above average likelihood of approval based on proprietary modeling.
Philippine Public Transport Assistance Program: Targeted Fuel Subsidy Approac...Paul Mithun
This document summarizes the Philippine Public Transport Assistance Program (Pantawid Pasada), which provided a targeted fuel subsidy to public transport drivers in the Philippines. The program issued smart cards to over 100,000 jeepney and tricycle drivers to receive discounted fuel. It aimed to cushion the impact of high fuel prices on these vulnerable groups. While the program was well received, it also faced challenges such as limited funding and lack of interconnected government databases to properly register recipients. The presentation evaluated key learnings from the program's implementation.
The document contains several short exercises about natural disasters, ways of walking, collocations, and parts of a television.
Exercise 1 asks to fill in blanks with words related to natural disasters like earthquake, volcanic eruption, hail, storms. Exercise 2 asks to name parts of a television. Exercise 3 provides drawings to replace with ways of walking like walking, falling, limping, peering. Exercise 4 gives partial words to complete collocations about becoming extinct, reducing waste, habitat destruction, wasting electricity, fossil fuels burning, balance of nature.
DesignerIndianWear.com offers a variety of salwar kameez designs for all seasons, including traditional, designer, Punjabi, summer, and winter styles, with different colors and shades. The website provides salwar-kameez clothing at different price ranges and is a symbol of all-season wear. Contact information and the address for DesignerIndianWear is provided at the bottom.
Big Pharma is facing a crisis as many blockbuster drugs are going off-patent and the pipeline of new drugs is weak. R&D spending has doubled over the past decade but productivity has declined, with fewer new drugs approved despite higher costs. Alternative strategies such as mergers and acquisitions, in-licensing, and partnerships have had mixed results in addressing the pipeline problem. The document discusses challenges in drug development and strategies the pharmaceutical industry has used to boost R&D productivity.
The IOSR Journal of Pharmacy (IOSRPHR) is an open access online & offline peer reviewed international journal, which publishes innovative research papers, reviews, mini-reviews, short communications and notes dealing with Pharmaceutical Sciences( Pharmaceutical Technology, Pharmaceutics, Biopharmaceutics, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmaceutical/Medicinal Chemistry, Computational Chemistry and Molecular Drug Design, Pharmacognosy & Phytochemistry, Pharmacology, Pharmaceutical Analysis, Pharmacy Practice, Clinical and Hospital Pharmacy, Cell Biology, Genomics and Proteomics, Pharmacogenomics, Bioinformatics and Biotechnology of Pharmaceutical Interest........more details on Aim & Scope).
All manuscripts are subject to rapid peer review. Those of high quality (not previously published and not under consideration for publication in another journal) will be published without delay.
New technologies and the outsourcing of clinical trials to lower-cost countries will slow the recent annual increases in expenditures in the U.S. to a 3.3% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) over the forecast period.
This document summarizes McKinsey's perspectives on improving pharmaceutical R&D productivity. It finds that while scientific innovation is important, better management of costs, speed, and decision making can significantly increase returns. Modeling shows the average small molecule's return is below cost of capital. Improving management in costs (e.g. reducing failures' costs), speed (e.g. accelerating programs 18 months), and decision making (e.g. removing weak programs earlier) could boost the average small molecule's IRR from 7.5% to 13%, surpassing cost of capital. Better management offers a path to reinventing invention without radical changes to the scientific model.
The document discusses the business challenges posed by new genomics technologies for the pharmaceutical industry. While these technologies are expected to accelerate drug discovery, they are also likely to significantly increase R&D costs over the next 5 years. Models developed by McKinsey and Lehman Brothers predict that costs could double for some companies as higher drug failure rates in late stages of development stretch out timelines. However, costs are expected to subside after 10 years as technologies like proteomics and bioinformatics mature. The winners may be companies that make strategic choices about research portfolios and licensing to manage these short-term cost pressures from the genomics revolution.
The document analyzes and dispels five common myths about the drug delivery industry. It argues that far from being a declining sector, drug delivery has delivered steady product approvals over the past decade and continues to be an important source of new products. It also contends that the drug delivery market is growing, drug delivery business models can be sustainable, product line extensions using drug delivery technologies are effective strategies, and drug delivery companies offer diverse technologies, not just similar controlled release solutions.
This document analyzes and dispels five common myths about the drug delivery industry. It argues that drug delivery has delivered many new products, the market is growing not declining, the business model can be sustainable, product line extensions using drug delivery approaches are effective strategies, and drug delivery companies offer diverse technologies, not just similar controlled release solutions. The drug delivery industry plays a key role in addressing challenges in pharma by developing improved treatment options.
Technology is disrupting the process behind drug development. Growing realization that current clinical trial strategies are not sustainable or feasible means one thing - change. But, where do pharmaceutical companies go from here? An integrated clinical trial ecosystem will arise through leveraging emerging business technologies. But, are companies prepared to take advantage?
This document discusses trends in conducting clinical trials in emerging markets. It finds that 59% of surveyed companies have already begun trials in emerging markets, with 41% planning to within 2 years. Asia is the main target region. Conducting trials in emerging markets allows companies to potentially lower costs and access new patient populations. However, it also presents challenges around partnerships, supply chains, and ensuring data quality and regulatory compliance. The document examines differences between pharmaceutical, biotech, and life sciences companies in their approaches to emerging market trials.
M&A deal values in the in vitro diagnostics sector surged in 2010 to $4.7 billion, driven by five factors including private equity returning to the sector and medical technology companies combining with diagnostics businesses. While the number of deals remained flat at around 45 deals, the market shares of top players are expected to reshuffle following mega-deals by Danaher and Thermo Fisher in 2011 that are projected to more than triple the total M&A value for the year. New market entrants will continue to reshape the competitive landscape through 2015 as historical leaders respond to avoid losing industry rank.
This document provides a business plan for a new pharmaceutical company called NEWTech Advant. The plan includes a situation analysis of the pharmaceutical market, noting trends like an aging population and increased regulation. It outlines NEWTech Advant's goals of improving existing drugs and discovering new ones. The marketing strategy discusses targeting physicians and patients aged 45+, and increasing market share through advertising. Financial objectives include achieving profitability in three years. The plan also analyzes strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the new company.
This document discusses Eli Lilly and Company's drug development strategy. It notes that the pharmaceutical industry is very profitable but also high-risk and capital intensive. Eli Lilly aims to shorten its drug development cycle through acquisitions and adopting new technologies like combinatorial chemistry. The document then focuses on Eli Lilly's migraine drug project and evaluates three scenarios for developing its lead compound, considering factors like market share, patent expiration, and clinical trial success rates. Experts provide varying estimates of clinical trial success under each scenario. The document concludes by recommending that Eli Lilly continue investing in new technologies to cut development times while also maintaining a large CNS drug portfolio and pipeline to mitigate risks.
R&D Productivity and Costs in Today's Health Care Arena - Pat AudetTTC, llc
The document discusses challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry including increased healthcare costs, decreased R&D productivity, and more difficulty achieving blockbuster drugs. It also outlines strategies the industry is taking to address these challenges such as focusing on specialty and biologic drugs, reducing R&D costs through outsourcing and adaptive clinical trial designs, and pursuing mergers and acquisitions.
Global orphan drug market outlook 2018Rajesh Sarma
“Global Orphan Drug Market Outlook 2018” research report by KuicK Research comprehensive insight on following developments related to global orphan drug market:
Global & Regional Orphan Drug Market Overview
Orphan Drug Designation Criteria Across Key Markets
Market Specific Reimbursement Policy & Regulatory Framework
Orphan Drug Pipeline by Phase, Orphan Designated Disease & Country
Competitive Landscape
Decoding Phase II Clinical Trial Failuressubhabbasu
Clinical development is costly, with hundreds of millions of dollars spent to bring a drug to market. We identified the major reasons why Phase II clinical trials are terminated. Phase II serves as a major decision point, where a drug's effectiveness and safety are tested. However, our analysis of 444 clinical trials found Efficacy and Safety were reasons three and four, respectively, for trial terminations. Read to find out the top two reasons!
GSK’S Andrew Witty: Addressing Neglected Tropical Diseases and global health ...Nejmeddine Jemaa
Every day, Non Governmental Organization NGOs is confronted with the lack of access to adequate or affordable medical tools in the field. They face two major challenges the high cost of existing medicines on the one hand, and the absence of appropriate or effective treatments for many of the diseases affecting our patients on the other, we are talking about Neglected Tropical Disease NTD in the Least developed Countries LDCs.
Andrew Witty, Chief Executive Officer of Glaxo Smith Klein (GSK) delivered a speech at the Harvard Business School in Boston on February 2009 entitled “Big pharma a catalyst for Change” focused on two issues: a) promoting innovation to prevent or treat NTDs in the world’s Least Developed Countries by creating a “pharmaceutical patent pool”; b) improving the access to medicine in the poorer countries by lowering the prices of GSK’s medicines.
In deed, we are assisting a radical change in pharma Business model, we are moving from conflict to collaboration through the Medicines Patent Pool in the hope that it speed up access to newer medicines, and boost initiatives that make use of alternative financing mechanisms in order to develop new, more appropriate treatments that respond to medical needs.
On the other hand the pricing strategy dilemma facing the generic manufacturers and the non inclusion of HIV which is a major neglected disease in LDCs in the patent pool may compromise the success of such business model.
In order to deal with that two issues, GSK should include HIV drugs in their patent pool as other manufacturers and NGO are doing, and concerning the pricing strategy they should emphasize on the high quality of the original drug mandatory to eradicate this NTDs and communicate more on the fact that GSK will invest 20% of these drugs profit to improve the infrastructure of these LDCs.
The document discusses building an integrated early clinical development platform to improve the path to proof of concept for new drug candidates. It argues that traditional single-site phase I studies are evolving into a networked model where learning is maximized through connections to patient populations, biomarkers, adaptive trial designs, and data integration across sites. This approach seeks to address fundamental pharmacologic questions earlier and improve the probability of success in phase II trials, which dominates the cost of drug development.
The pharmaceutical industry is facing challenges developing new drugs due to limited knowledge of biology and chemistry. There are only about 500 validated drug targets and 9,500 known chemical compounds. The industry has relied on developing oral small-molecule drugs but is running out of viable targets and compounds. To succeed in the future, companies will need to accelerate target validation, invest more in new areas like genomics and proteomics, broaden their portfolios, and increase collaboration with external partners to gain expertise in areas like biologics development.
The document discusses marketing strategies used by pharmaceutical companies. It notes that companies are shifting from acute therapies to focusing more on chronic therapies that require long-term treatment. This allows companies to build more stable customer bases. The document also outlines some of the challenges companies face, such as increased competition, high costs of research and development, and complex decision-making processes involving doctors, patients, and other stakeholders. It discusses two common business models - the "super core model" involving a small number of highly successful chronic drugs, and the "core model" involving marketing a larger number of acute drugs.
Similar to The Innovation Gap in Pharmaceutical Drug Discovery and New Models for R&D Success (20)
Is Your Supply Chain Ready for Omnichannel Revolution Michael Hu
Online retail sales are expected to grow exponentially between now and 2025. Winning in this arena will require a supply chain that increases product availability with flexible delivery options at a lower cost.
Although CPG companies have not historically operated at the forefront of digital change, the intense and competing demands they face today require exactly the type of game-changing approaches that digital can deliver.
From Alexa and Siri to factory robots and financial chatbots, intelligent systems are reshaping industries. But the biggest changes are still to come, giving companies time to create winning AI strategies
Creating an Omnichannel Supply Chain for BrandsMichael Hu
Branded manufacturers can take advantage of the unprecedented omnichannel opportunity to get closer to the consumer, if they manage to acquire the requisite fulfilment and supply chain capabilities. European Business Review
Winning Supply Chain in Omnichannel - Trends and ImplicationsMichael Hu
I gave a talk at Professor Chopra's class at Kellogg on emerging trends in omnichannel retailing and the need for new supply chain and fulfillment models.
In today’s omnichannel world, the distinction between brands and retailers is of little interest to consumers. They will buy from whoever is best able to “deliver the goods.” Branded manufacturers can take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to get closer to the consumer, if they manage to acquire the requisite fulfillment and supply chain capabilities.
3D Printing - A Manufacturing RevolutionMichael Hu
The question is not if but when companies need to consider 3D printing. A.T. Kearney is helping forward-thinking players overcome the challenges and take advantage of powerful opportunities in this next generation of manufacturing.
Global Trends Shaping Future Omnichannel Supply ChainMichael Hu
Omnichannel retail sales have consistently doubled every 4-5 years since 2001 and is expected to become a $1.8 trillion dollar market by 2016 and then quickly grow to $7 trillion by 2025. Part of the growth is driven by consumers take their shopping online and mobile. However this is just one side of the equation. The other enabler is the continued increase in supply chain innovation as retailers seek to make more products available with faster and more flexible delivery options at lower cost. Going forward, we see six global trends that will shape future winning omnichannel supply chains
The Future of Big Box Last Mile DeliveryMichael Hu
The document discusses the future of big box home delivery. It notes that the industry is fragmented with many small providers and in-house operations controlling 75% of the market. Margins are low due to limited scale, low barriers to entry, and lack of differentiation. A national home delivery service integrator is proposed as a solution to bring scale, reduce costs through volume consolidation, and transform the industry. The integrator could provide benefits to retailers and consumers through improved service quality and cost savings. Key challenges to establishing an integrator include the capabilities and assets required and achieving sufficient market share through industry consolidation.
The Role of Manufacturers in Multichannel RetailingMichael Hu
The document discusses the growth of multi-channel retailing driven by advancing technology and shifting consumer behaviors. It notes that the traditional manufacturer/retailer value chain is blurring, with manufacturers increasingly pursuing forward integration by taking on responsibilities like marketing, sales fulfillment, and customer service. To succeed in multi-channel retailing, manufacturers must manage channel conflicts, develop a strategic vision, and build capabilities to integrate their own touchpoints and align with retailer channels. This will allow them to offer a consistent brand experience, seamless integration, and single view of the customer across channels.
Beating the Burden of Brick & Mortar for Omnichannel Fulfillment SuccessMichael Hu
Fulfillment is both more complex and mission critical in a multichannel retail setting. Brick & mortar retailers must overcome their “burden” of traditional store channel focus to achieve multi-channel fulfillment excellence
Disruptive Value Chain Integration in Consumer Product IndustryMichael Hu
The document discusses disruptive trends in the consumer retail industry and the need for supply chain integration. It outlines four major trends driving changes: commodity scarcity, global competition, post-recession consciousness, and changing demographics. To address these challenges, the document argues that manufacturers and retailers must move beyond local optimization to integrated value chain collaboration. Two models for integration are proposed: an open broker model and a vertical alliance model. The document concludes by providing guidance on assessing opportunities and developing a roadmap for integration.
Only 50% of mergers actually increase shareholder value. Why? Often, one of the culprits is product complexity. Companies that manage the complexity of a newly combined product portfolio can capture value, smooth the overall merger process
Outside The Box Distribution - Three Dimensions for Distribution ExcellenceMichael Hu
What allows certain companies to deliver best-in-class distribution performance while others turn in only average performance or fail altogether? Leaders in distribution consistently think outside the box for sustained competitiveness.
buy old yahoo accounts buy yahoo accountsSusan Laney
As a business owner, I understand the importance of having a strong online presence and leveraging various digital platforms to reach and engage with your target audience. One often overlooked yet highly valuable asset in this regard is the humble Yahoo account. While many may perceive Yahoo as a relic of the past, the truth is that these accounts still hold immense potential for businesses of all sizes.
Event Report - SAP Sapphire 2024 Orlando - lots of innovation and old challengesHolger Mueller
Holger Mueller of Constellation Research shares his key takeaways from SAP's Sapphire confernece, held in Orlando, June 3rd till 5th 2024, in the Orange Convention Center.
Understanding User Needs and Satisfying ThemAggregage
https://www.productmanagementtoday.com/frs/26903918/understanding-user-needs-and-satisfying-them
We know we want to create products which our customers find to be valuable. Whether we label it as customer-centric or product-led depends on how long we've been doing product management. There are three challenges we face when doing this. The obvious challenge is figuring out what our users need; the non-obvious challenges are in creating a shared understanding of those needs and in sensing if what we're doing is meeting those needs.
In this webinar, we won't focus on the research methods for discovering user-needs. We will focus on synthesis of the needs we discover, communication and alignment tools, and how we operationalize addressing those needs.
Industry expert Scott Sehlhorst will:
• Introduce a taxonomy for user goals with real world examples
• Present the Onion Diagram, a tool for contextualizing task-level goals
• Illustrate how customer journey maps capture activity-level and task-level goals
• Demonstrate the best approach to selection and prioritization of user-goals to address
• Highlight the crucial benchmarks, observable changes, in ensuring fulfillment of customer needs
Top mailing list providers in the USA.pptxJeremyPeirce1
Discover the top mailing list providers in the USA, offering targeted lists, segmentation, and analytics to optimize your marketing campaigns and drive engagement.
Recruiting in the Digital Age: A Social Media MasterclassLuanWise
In this masterclass, presented at the Global HR Summit on 5th June 2024, Luan Wise explored the essential features of social media platforms that support talent acquisition, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok.
Navigating the world of forex trading can be challenging, especially for beginners. To help you make an informed decision, we have comprehensively compared the best forex brokers in India for 2024. This article, reviewed by Top Forex Brokers Review, will cover featured award winners, the best forex brokers, featured offers, the best copy trading platforms, the best forex brokers for beginners, the best MetaTrader brokers, and recently updated reviews. We will focus on FP Markets, Black Bull, EightCap, IC Markets, and Octa.
Tata Group Dials Taiwan for Its Chipmaking Ambition in Gujarat’s DholeraAvirahi City Dholera
The Tata Group, a titan of Indian industry, is making waves with its advanced talks with Taiwanese chipmakers Powerchip Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (PSMC) and UMC Group. The goal? Establishing a cutting-edge semiconductor fabrication unit (fab) in Dholera, Gujarat. This isn’t just any project; it’s a potential game changer for India’s chipmaking aspirations and a boon for investors seeking promising residential projects in dholera sir.
Visit : https://www.avirahi.com/blog/tata-group-dials-taiwan-for-its-chipmaking-ambition-in-gujarats-dholera/
Taurus Zodiac Sign: Unveiling the Traits, Dates, and Horoscope Insights of th...my Pandit
Dive into the steadfast world of the Taurus Zodiac Sign. Discover the grounded, stable, and logical nature of Taurus individuals, and explore their key personality traits, important dates, and horoscope insights. Learn how the determination and patience of the Taurus sign make them the rock-steady achievers and anchors of the zodiac.
LA HUG - Video Testimonials with Chynna Morgan - June 2024Lital Barkan
Have you ever heard that user-generated content or video testimonials can take your brand to the next level? We will explore how you can effectively use video testimonials to leverage and boost your sales, content strategy, and increase your CRM data.🤯
We will dig deeper into:
1. How to capture video testimonials that convert from your audience 🎥
2. How to leverage your testimonials to boost your sales 💲
3. How you can capture more CRM data to understand your audience better through video testimonials. 📊
Company Valuation webinar series - Tuesday, 4 June 2024FelixPerez547899
This session provided an update as to the latest valuation data in the UK and then delved into a discussion on the upcoming election and the impacts on valuation. We finished, as always with a Q&A
The 10 Most Influential Leaders Guiding Corporate Evolution, 2024.pdfthesiliconleaders
In the recent edition, The 10 Most Influential Leaders Guiding Corporate Evolution, 2024, The Silicon Leaders magazine gladly features Dejan Štancer, President of the Global Chamber of Business Leaders (GCBL), along with other leaders.
Unveiling the Dynamic Personalities, Key Dates, and Horoscope Insights: Gemin...my Pandit
Explore the fascinating world of the Gemini Zodiac Sign. Discover the unique personality traits, key dates, and horoscope insights of Gemini individuals. Learn how their sociable, communicative nature and boundless curiosity make them the dynamic explorers of the zodiac. Dive into the duality of the Gemini sign and understand their intellectual and adventurous spirit.
The Innovation Gap in Pharmaceutical Drug Discovery and New Models for R&D Success
1. The Innovation Gap in
Pharmaceutical Drug Discovery &
New Models for R&D Success
Kellogg School of Management
HIMT 455: Professor Hughes
Michael Hu
Karl Schultz
Jack Sheu
Daniel Tschopp
March 12, 2007
2. 1
Table of contents
1 How Serious is the Innovation Gap Crisis in Pharma R&D?..............................................................................2
2 Root Causes of the Innovation Gap ..............................................................................................4
3 Pharma’s Existing Strategies for Improving R&D Productivity...........................................................................5
4 New Strategies & Models for Improving R&D Productivity.................................................................................8
4.1 ‘R’ follows ‘D’ in Outsourcing..........................................................................................................8
4.2 Cooperative Platform Technology Development..........................................................................18
4.3 Open Source Innovation...............................................................................................................23
Appendices ............................................................................................34
References ............................................................................................36
3. 2
R&D spending for drug discovery
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
$B
PhRM spend
NIH budget
Figure 2 Pharma R&D spend from 1992-2004.
1 How Serious is the Innovation Gap Crisis in Pharma R&D?
To answer whether the pharmaceutical industry is undergoing a productivity crisis
depends in part on how we define innovation productivity. If we adopt the pragmatic definition
of the number of new drugs, defined by new molecular entities (NMEs), approved per year, then
it appears that the industry is indeed in a
midst of a major crisis. The number of NMEs
and priority review drug approvals has
remained relatively flat in the past decade 1
(see Figure 1), despite a ballooning on the
cost side. The amount of spending that
pharmaceuticals poured into R&D has
consistently increased year over year 2
(Figure
2), from ~15B in 1995 to approx 40B in 2005.
This data is consistent with the DiMasi study3
showing that the time discounted total cost of
developing a single drug is $800M in 2002,
increasing at an annual, inflation adjusted rate
of 7.6% between 1991 and 2000. In short, between 1995 and 2005, the industry increased R&D
spending by more than 2.5X in order to sustain its flat growth pipeline productivity.
Moreover, the problem is exacerbated by the fact
that the NME drugs that do make it to market
seem to lack the market size/ revenue stream
potential of their predecessors. During 1990-94,
11 new drugs had reached the “top 100 drugs”
category in terms of global sales. From 1995-99,
10 new drugs approved made it into the “top 100
drugs” category. However, during the period from
2000-04, only 2 new approvals broke into the top
100 revenue generators4
.
If these trends extrapolate into the future, the industry will not be able to tolerate the burden of this
Red Queen Effect of continued cost escalation just to maintain the tepid innovation status quo.
Figure 1 FDA drug approvals have remained flat
FDA Drug Approvals from 1995-2005
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
#Approvals
approvals
NMEs
priority review drugs
4. 3
In defense to the troubling trends, some studies report5
that R&D innovation is showing a steady
growth of 8% in new projects per year in the pre-clinical and phase 1-2 stages of the pipeline;
however it is unclear if pharma can translate this to innovation productivity since:
i) unclear which of the early phase projects are truly new innovation products or simply
second-in-class me-too products
ii) unclear if 8% growth in early phase will translate to material increase in approved
products after going through the attrition, risk-laden clinical trials process
Others have suggested that this decade could be experiencing a lag between R&D spending and the
extraction of value from that investment. During the 1960-70s, economists were also concerned
about the simultaneous increase in annual R&D spending and the decrease in NMEs approved6
.
However the alarming piece of data is that the gap between the rate of R&D cost increase and the
decline/flat growth of productivity is much wider now that it was in the 1960-70’s6
.
In a Bain & Co analysis7
(Figure 3), the
total cost of doing pharmaceutical R&D has
increased across the board between 2000-
2002 compared to historical trends from
1995-2000; the rising costs was particularly
pronounced in Phase II trials. A large part of
the increase in costs is due to an increase in
failure during clinical trials.
According to the Bain study [7], during
2000-2002, it took 13 candidates coming
out of pre-clinical trials to push 1 product
to final launch whereas between 1995 and
2002, only 8 preclinical candidates were
required on average to yield one
successful drug (Figure 4). The
cumulative success rate (probability) of
making it successfully across the clinical
trials have decreased from the historical 14% to 8% in 2000-2002. Moreover, since the analysis was
Figure 4 Failure rates in clinical trials have increased. Bain model 2003
Figure 1 Comparison of R&D costs. Bain model 2003
5. 4
done on all drug projects, we can reasonably assume that the success rates are even lower for NME
class drugs.
2 Root Causes of the Innovation Gap
“Most of the easy wins have already been made…Now we are into more indirect ways of treating
diseases: stopping tumours from growing by preventing their ability to get blood supply … These are
much more complicated. This is not to belittle the advances so far, but things are getting difficult.”
Lars Rebien Sorenson, CEO of Norvo Nordisk, BusinessWorld 2004
1) Saturation of low hanging fruits: we are pushing the limits of our current scientific understanding
of the major disease related biological pathways where solving the productivity challenge requires an
increase in the rate of basic scientific discovery and biological understanding. Some posit this as
being one of the major culprits of the productivity decline 8
, others such as in a 2004 McKinsey
study9
downplay the low hanging fruit hypothesis, stating as an example that the “G-protein-coupled
receptor” (GPCRs) are the target of 30% of all marketed products, but there are several hundred more
GPCRs that are yet to be characterized. We find this argument inconclusive since it could very well
be that out of the 30% of the marketed products targeting GPCRs, 25% are me-too, incremental
follow-ups with sub-optimal revenue streams; this would diminish the attractiveness of going after
the remaining uncharacterized GPCRs.
One potential cause of this saturation is that for the past decade, most of pharmaceutical research
efforts have focused largely in four major disease areas: central nervous system, cancer,
cardiovascular and infectious disease. Increasingly, it will have to search for products in poorly
understood and more complex therapeutic areas such as autoimmune diseases and genitourinary
conditions10
.
2) Pharma focusing on riskier, genomics based candidates rather than clinical validated drug targets.
In the McKinsey study [9], Booth and Zemmel found that during 1999-2004, many companies have
opted to go after novel targets discovered from the human genome project and computational
analysis methods. Consequently the aggregate industry portfolio is much riskier than in the previous
decade. They estimate that in 1990 a typical target in development had ~100 scientific citations while
in 1999, an average drug candidate had only 8 scientific citations. Targets that lack clinical validation
fail at significantly higher rates in trials.
6. 5
The more interesting question is why collectively, all the pharmaceutical companies decided to shift
their discovery portfolio to these riskier candidates. One rather extreme answer is due to sheer
irrational exuberance; the science behind these novel candidates were so novel and exciting that
pharma decided to abandon risk adjusted, systematic project development processes in favor of these
riskier and more exciting alternatives. Another more rational explanation is that the pharma as an
industry were already running out of promising, clinically validated candidates and thus had few
options but to adopt the less validated, novel candidates to refill their pipelines in pursuit of NME,
blockbuster drugs. This would support the hypothesis that the low hanging fruits have been picked.
3) Pharma too big to innovate: Another potential source for pharma’s productivity woes is their size;
some argue that pharmaceuticals have grown too large to maintain an entrepreneurial culture and
business environment required for innovative R&D discoveries. The only alternative existing
commercial based R&D model to benchmark against is the biotech industry. However it is unclear if
biotech, although commanding a higher stock multiplier, indeed actually generates better
productivity per dollar spent than pharma. In his article11
, HBS professor Gary Pisano argues that the
biotech industry has fared no better than pharma in terms of cost vs productivity in trying to bring
new drugs to market. Pisano argues that the small, fragmented and the entrepreneurial structure of the
biotech sector with venture based funding focusing on short time horizon gains does not create an
optimal “anatomy” or architecture for performing scientific discovery. In addition, studies conducted
on the productivity of the pharmaceutical industry from the 1960s to the early 1990s between large
and small pharma companies also show that larger firms enjoyed better productivity overall due to
economies of scope12
.
3 Pharma’s Existing Strategies for Improving R&D Productivity
The pharmaceutical industry in the past decade have responded to the innovation gap through a
variety of tactics, from throwing money into internal R&D to horizontal industry consolidation to an
increased dependence on in-licensing from biotechnology sector. If one traced the timeline of when
these ideas were popular among the industry and were actively implemented, they more or less
follow a serial sequence across the timeline; moreover each of the aforementioned “solutions”
increases in implementation difficulty in terms of process coordination and managerial complexity.
Figure 5 is a graphical depiction of the above two observations. The pattern suggests one key take-
away: none of these tactics have proven the panacea to pharma’s R&D innovation woes and
7. 6
Timeline
Ease of
Implementation
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Increased R&D Spend
Industry
Consolidation
Biotech in-licensing/
acquisition
R&D reorganization
Outsourcing
Open-source
Cooperative Tech Dev
pharmaceuticals are resorting to more risky and complex initiatives in an effort to curtail the Red
Queen Effect of R&D stagnation.
Increased R&D Spending: This strategy was implicit in the increasing R&D costs associated with
each drug brought to market, and the speed with which these figures are rising.
Horizontal Consolidation: The industry saw a wave of horizontal consolidations as drug companies
sought to seek either i) economies of scale across the entire value chain, from R&D discovery to
sales force or ii) short term growth engines in light of expiring patents and enervated pipelines.
Often executives cite that synergies in R&D competencies and increased research productivity as key
motivations for M&As. To date there is mixed evidence in the literature on the effects of scale on
R&D productivity. Most evidence seems to indicate that there is no strong correlation between scale
and improved productivity13
.
Biotech In-Licensing: Pharmaceuticals are increasingly relying on partnerships and in-licensing drug
candidates from the biotechnology sector to supplement its pipeline (see appendix 1A).
There are two potential problems of delegating the discovery task to the biotechnology sector:
i) There is no evidence that biotech can live up to the challenge. Although the pace and number
of in-licensing deals and alliances have increased, the total number of NME approvals (both
Figure 5 - Diagrammatic depiction of the different models of innovation; the three in the red box are
emerging models at the horizon while the others have already been adopted by the industry.
8. 7
small molecules and biologics) in the pharma as well as the biotech sectors have not
increased to date or kept pace with the spending.
ii) Even if biotechnology firms can fill pharm’s pipelines, this will shift the bargaining power
and thus the value capture lever to the biotechnology sector1
, thereby reducing the
profitability of the entire pharmaceutical industry. This trend is already evident in the rapid
increase in prices for in-licensing biologics from biotech firms. For example, the average deal
price for a pre-clinical product doubled between 2002 and 2004 to $72MM/deal, and the
average price for a phase I deal jumped from $57MM in 2004 to $82MM in 200514
.
See appendix 1B for a listing of the biggest pharma/biotech deals in 2005.
In the context of Figure 5, the industry is currently somewhere between the “Biotech in-licensing”
and “R&D Outsourcing” regimes in the evolution of its innovation model adoption. The rest of the
paper will explore several new innovation models on the horizon, namely: outsourcing, cooperative
technology development and open sourcing.
1
Biotech will demand both more up-front payments as well as the % of profit as royalties upon successful product
launch.
9. 8
4 New Strategies & Models for Improving R&D Productivity
“That is why the business model is under threat: the ability to devise new molecules through R&D and
bring them to market is not keeping up with what’s being lost to generic manufacturers on the other end.
This situation requires new thinking, new urgency, new capabilities.”
Fred Hassan, CEO Schering-Plough
4.1 ‘R’ follows ‘D’ in R&D Outsourcing
Definition of Drug Discovery Outsourcing
To begin, a clear definition of discovery outsourcing is warranted, as this term is often applied in
different ways. For this discussion, a discovery outsourcing firm is defined as a vendor
providing discovery services to the pharmaceutical or biotech industry. These companies are
often referred to as Contract Research Organizations (CROs), although such companies may
provide a range of services beyond drug discovery. And while our focus will be on CROs, other
service providers, such as academic institutions or platform technology firms, may share some of
these qualities.
What are the major areas in drug discovery that CROs are now active in? Four major market
segments are: Chemistry, Biology, Screening, and Lead-optimization. The two areas growing
fastest are Lead-optimization and Biology (over 20%/yr). Chemistry is growing 10%/year;
Screening at 6%. The overall market for outsourced drug discovery in 2005 was $4.1 billion,
and is projected to grow at a 15% rate to reach $7.2 billion in 2009. This remains a highly
fragmented market. Even the top suppliers each have less than 1% of the contract drug discovery
market. Major players include: Albany Molecular, ChemBridge, Evotec, MDS Pharma,
Pharmacopeia. The following table shows R&D spending in the pharma industry over time.
The data shows that spending is increasing for both discovery and development outsourcing, and
that development outsourcing is leading the way.2
2
Gardner, J. Outsourcing in Drug Discovery, 2nd
edition, A Kalorama Market Intelligence Report, January 2006. p:
1-232.
10. 9
Source: Kalorama reports
Research Follows Development Outsourcing: Moving Beyond In-house Capabilities
In this paper, innovation is defined as the ability to produce NMEs. Doing so requires finding a
large number of high quality lead compounds, through innovations in the drug discovery phase.
While drug development lies downstream from this process, interesting parallels can be drawn
between the two to predict the evolution of the discovery outsourcing model. Drug development
outsourcing is more mature than drug discovery outsourcing, so this model serves as a good
predictor. A close analysis will show that drug discovery outsourcing can lead to innovation.
Originally, drug development was outsourced by big pharma because of limited resources.
Large late-phase drug trials are highly labor intensive and the stream of such trials is
inconsistent; therefore, growing in-house capabilities to cover such intermittent needs would be
economically unfeasible. CROs were traditionally seen as a necessary evil: While in-house
teams allowed better oversight and typically had more experience, outsourced teams were more
cost efficient. Often, only the most labor intensive and highly standardized parts of the
development process were outsourced (i.e. clinical monitoring and data management for large
phase III trials).
Big-pharma was also looking at ways to cut costs in the drug discovery stage. Initially, only
routine steps were outsourced. Innovation was left to the in-house scientists. Some companies
11. 10
like Pfizer decided not to outsource any work in drug discovery. Concerns about loss of IP and a
belief that core competencies must be developed in house, were major drivers for this strategy.
The emergence of biotechnology provided a big boost to the outsourcing model. Suddenly,
biotech start ups with limited funding but a great idea needed to outsource nearly all aspects of
both research and development. In extreme cases, these companies acted as virtual companies,
with a core team of experts managing multiple vendors to complete all drug discovery, clinical
trial monitoring, data management, and NDA submission work. Suddenly, demand grew for
full-service CROs.
With time, the pharma industry discovered that outsourcing firms could not only do all steps in
the development process, CROs could do it cheaper and faster. And quality was no longer an
issue. Because CROs began to specialize in certain steps of the development process or specific
therapeutic fields, they became the experts in those areas. They learned to reach patient
recruitment goals faster, reviewed and cleaned data files more quickly, and found innovative
ways of managing clinical sites.
A new reason to outsource also emerged. With growing pressure about vigilance and
independent review the FDA began to look more favorably on CROs, as they did not have a
direct stake in the success of drug trials. This aspect also helped to make CROs so profitable.
Most contracts were set up as fee-for-service. Whether a drug succeeded or not was irrelevant.
The CRO was paid for its services regardless.
While this historical perspective provides insights into the rise of CROs, the question remains
whether CROs have helped or hindered the development of NMEs. While outsourcing
development may have led to faster approvals and lower development costs, the clinical trial
process only affects innovation indirectly. The key is to find more lead compounds with a
greater likelihood of making it through the clinical trial flow.
Why the Need for Outsourcing is Greater Now than Ever
12. 11
The current growth in the discovering outsourcing arena will increase. Section one of this paper
provides an interesting look at the lack of innovation in the pharmaceutical arena. Closer
investigation of some of these root causes is warranted in order to show how CROs can fill a
very specific need.
High Risk and High Cost of New Technology
Pharmaceutical companies have been burned with several hyped platforms. It’s unclear if any of
these technologies will still pay off in the long run. Many argue that pharmaceutical companies
invested too much money into these technologies too soon. The cost of these new technologies
continues to grow. As technology becomes ever more advanced, with higher specificity and
larger throughput, the investment required to fund a single technology can easily reach into the
millions.
Lack of Efficient Learning
In the past ten years, many of the big pharma companies have merged to produce mega firms.
These mergers were touted for their ability to benefit from synergies and complementary assets.
The reality has been less rosy. Research centers that traditionally struggled to communicate
internally were suddenly faced with the burden of coordinating their efforts with many more
labs. Even if the two merged companies were involved in different therapeutic areas, many of
their discovery capabilities were redundant. Researchers were expected to combine efforts
across groups and research centers often located large distances from each other. Power
struggles and cultural differences served as major roadblocks to innovation.
Another trend in the pharma industry has been the reorganization to therapeutically aligned
business units. Larger pharmas with multiple research centers now place different therapeutic
expertise in each location. Novartis reorganized to this model in 2001, and Roche announced
13. 12
that it will change its structure to this model later in 20073
. The reason for this move is to
promote communication along the development pipeline for each product. Pharma companies
had learned that a huge amount of information was lost each time a product was handed off
during successive steps in the R&D process. A negative side effect of this reorganization is that
functional groups from different therapeutic areas are less closely linked. The shared learnings
across a functional group are therefore diminished.
IP and Cultural Issues Associated with Expansion into Asia
The final point that should be considered in our outsourcing model, is the trend for pharma to
enter Asia. While a steady increase in the standard of living in this area represents a market with
huge growth potential, pharma’s are looking eastward for other reasons. Cheap labor coupled
with a well-educated workforce makes this a very attractive area for conducting R&D. However,
IP concerns as well as cultural and communication barriers hinder this expansion.
CROs Can Help
CROs can provide solutions to each of the issues noted above. Each point will be revisited from
the standpoint of the CROs, and how such firms can create answers for the barriers to innovation.
Risk Sharing for New Technology
Risk sharing occurs when separate entities invest in a common, risky endeavor. In the case of
technology, sharing risk can be a necessity. In the past, many pharma companies have invested
in expensive technology, but then are unable to fund the endless experiments that are required in
order to find a pay-off for this investment. If these companies could better pool such
investments, the pay-off may look different. By contracting out the research to another firm
(such as a CRO), each company pays only a fraction of the expected total. Universities have
taken this approach. Investing in large equipment, they find that these machines are used much
3
Ward, M, Strategy: Mini Roches, Biocentury, 2007. 15 (8), February 12, p:A8.
14. 13
below their full capacity. As a way to generate more revenue, these university research centers
contract out their equipment. The problem with this model is that these university centers are
typically very small, and have large turn-over. Much of the research is conducted by graduate
students who have limited experience, and thus the quality of the work can be unacceptable.
More preferably, larger CROs can invest in these technologies and hire the top specialists in an
area. If specialized CROs become the provider of choice for specific technologies, they can
advance more quickly than the singular pharmaceutical company. They will run more
experiments with more partners, and gain more learning as a result. The diagram below
illustrates that separate contracts by different pharmaceutical companies can lead to cost savings
for all players.
Shared Learning through the CRO
Learning often occurs through incremental improvements in processes. Through collaborations,
process learning can be made more efficient; all parties within the collaboration learn from each
other and the rate of learning is thereby improved (see learning curve figure, below). While
some processes in the pharmaceutical or biotech industry are patented many more that could be
improved incrementally, are not. Suitable vehicles for this sharing often do not exist.
Consortiums have this same goal in mind, but the economic benefit is not centralized sufficiently
to maximize the learning. CROs are in a better position, and are accustomed to learning from
NEW TECHNOLOGY
$750M
Pfizer $150M
GSK $100M
Merck $100Roche $120M
Genentech $80M
BMS $200M
15. 14
their environment: they are constantly updating their standard operating procedures and lab
protocols. Improvements in processes can lead to greater quality and higher efficiency, which
both are drivers for innovation.4
Bridge Cultural and Communication Barriers and Limit Risk in Asia
Experts are still skeptical about the ability to gain an innovative advantage by expanding into
Asia, but most agree that the environment is improving. China and India have joined the WTO,
and understand that it’s in their best interest to protect IP of overseas clients. Communication
links have also improved. Managers and scientists at outsourcing companies are getting better
at speaking the languages of their clients. Cultural differences between countries can still be a
barrier. Interpersonal relationships require time to cultivate. Business and social practices may
work differently in different countries. Questions of trust, honesty, and transparency may still
remain.
Pharma companies are increasing their stake in Asia. Novartis announced their plan to invest
$80 million in a new research center in China. Roche already has operations there. A prime
reason to open research centers in these countries is to gain access to the untapped intellectual
4
Powell, W. Learning from Collaboration: Knowledge and Networks in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical
Industries, California Management Review, 1998, 40(3), p:228-240.
Learning Curve
New Discovery Process or Platform
Co. A
Co. B
Co. C
CRO contracts
w/ Co. A, B, and C
16. 15
property. Some big pharma companies have recognized that local CROs can help to bridge
bridge cultural barriers. These CROs have connections with the local governments and
universities, are staffed by the local work force, and understand the environment in which they
operate. At the same time, the western companies are helping these local CROs to get up to
FDA standards. Bridge Pharmaceuticals, a Stanford Institute spin-off, is doing exactly that. This
western company has moved their in-house capabilities into China, partnering with Chinese labs,
and helping them get up to FDA standards. Long term, Bridge will create all the elements of
drug discovery and development by internal development or acquisition.5
Examples of Discovery CRO Partnerships
Different pharmaceutical companies have varying strategies for outsourcing drug discovery. The
following examples best illustrate different options.
Amgen
Amgen relies on a sole-source vendor model, with a focus on maximizing communication.
Quality, cost, speed are their main considerations. Amgen previously partnered with ten CROs
for their discovery work. More recently Amgen has shifted their strategy to outsource to only
one provider. Amgen has found that they are better able to manage this relationship and get
better results. The CRO has a predictable income from Amgen and can better invest in new
technologies.
GlaxoSmithKline
GlaxoSmithKline uses many suppliers mainly for building blocks and chemistry. They use a cost
vs. productivity matrix to evaluate partnerships. The number of building block suppliers has
grown exponentially. A decade ago there were only 20 building block suppliers, now there are
5
Gardner, J. Outsourcing in Drug Discovery, 2nd
edition, A Kalorama Market Intelligence Report, January 2006. p:
82.
17. 16
over 200. GlaxoSmithKline partners with vendors in the US, Europe, China, India, and Eastern
Europe.
Merck
Merck seeks to diversify research through relationships with new technology suppliers. Merck
has been fully committed to outsourcing for some time. They see it as a way to access novel
technologies, pursue parallel approaches, and leverage their scientific expertise. Merck sees
partnering as an integral, essential part of their business strategy. In fact, 35% of Merck’s sales
come from licensed products. To succeed, benefits must accrue to both partners. Merck has
experience doing deals in basic research, platform technologies, preclinical development, and
delivery technologies.
Merck
At one time, Pfizer only considered outsourcing clinical trials work. But they have found that
outsourcing is an excellent way to supplement their internal chemistry capacity and extend their
resources. It is also a very good way to access new technologies without having to develop them
internally.
TargeGen
18. 17
TargeGen is an Asian outsourcing success, proving that outsourcing works for small pharma.
TargeGen is a start-up pharma, founded in 2002 with $40 million of VC funding. They discover
and develop their own drug candidates through both in-vivo and in-vitro screening . TargeGen
created a wealth of candidates and their pipeline grew too quickly. TargeGen currently has four
drug candidates, each with different routes of administration that treat different diseases in
different stages of development. Their solution was to outsource selected parts of their research
program.
Innovation Through Pathway Development
As a final note, an interesting change in the discovery approach is underway. Porter and
Fischman of the Novartis Insitutes of BioMedical Research describe a current shift from a focus
on organ pathology to the elucidation of complex signaling pathways.6
Successful players in this
new era of discovery will best be able to harness information from the various resources
available to them. Following the arguments provided above, it is likely that CROs can help to
elucidate these pathways more efficiently. The IP no longer lies only in the rights to the best
molecules or the newest technologies, but in being the first to understand these pathways.
Discovery Services Provided by CROs
Biology Services
• Protein Expression & Purification
• Protein Structural Analysis
• Determining Protein-Protein Interactions
• Functional Genomics
• Bioinformatics
Chemistry Services
• Providing Building Blocks
• Compound Synthesis & Purification
6
Porter, J. and M. Fishman, A New Grammar for Drug Discovery, Nature 2005, 437, p: 491-493.
19. 18
• Process Research
• Library Design
Screening Services
• Assay Development
• Secondary Screening
Lead Optimization Services
• Early Absorption Distribution Metabolism Excretion (ADME)/Toxicity
• Compound Analogues and Structure Activity Relationships (SAR)
Source: Kalorama Reports
4.2 Cooperative Platform Technology Development
“First you have to have the tools that will help you discover those drugs more quickly”
JP Garnier, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline
Advances in technology can improve R&D productivity and efficiency, in particular in early
stage discovery work. New technologies can significantly enhance or speed up an existing
experimental procedure and discovery process, allowing for not only quicker and cheaper hypothesis
generation and validation but potentially unlocking new scientific insights leading to new therapeutic
pathways. We fill focus our discussion on platform based technologies that enhance or enable better
R&D productivity rather than therapeutic product based technologies aimed at end patients.
To date, only a handful of new and disruptive technologies have crossed the market adoption chasm
from odd lab curiosities to powerful tools used en-mass to truly improve industry-wide productivity.
Two such examples are PCR and microarray/gene-chip. Read Appendix 2 for a background of the
two technologies and their impact on biomedical R&D.
PCR revolutionized the entire field of molecular biology, speeding up the fundamental experimental
process of DNA replication by over a thousand fold. PCR saw quick and widespread adoption
because of three principal factors:
i) It had a clear value proposition and application of use for scientists.
ii) Although the first generation PCR products had certain limitations, it was inexpensive to
make incremental improvements to the technology. This enabled PCR to reach dominant
design form quickly. We define dominant design as a stage of technology maturity where
20. 19
both the fundamental architecture/science behind the technology is established and where
the major incremental improvements required for the technology to deliver a compelling
value proposition to the “mass” users is achieved.
iii) PCR also possessed what economist call low complementary asset requirements (the
technology does not require or depend on other significant technologies/processes, such
as deep user expertise, complex ancillary equipment, etc.
Gene-chip is one of the success stories in biomedical research in the past decade. The gene-chip
enabled biological scientists to interrogate the expression level of thousands of RNA expression
simultaneously rather than in manual, serial fashion. It changed the rules of the game for
conducting gene expression experiments. Despite its importance, gene-chips took three times as
long to achieve mass adoption as did
PCR. Originally invented in the late
1980s by Steven Fodor at the startup
firm Affymetrix, gene-chips did not
achieve wide usage until 1999-2001.
Figure 5 on the left tracks Affymetrix’s
revenue and profit trend since its
inception; we can roughly use the
revenue growth as proxy for its intensity
of use in the industry. It took six years,
from 1990-1996, for the early adopters
at the leading R&D labs to establish the
complementary assets required to fully leverage the technology, namely:
• The development of sophisticated noise reduction algorithms by the statistics & computer
science community. This improved the raw data quality into a dependable signal that
biologists can interpret.
• The accumulation and development of genomic annotation databases, which allowed
scientists to easily cross-reference their gene-chip expression data with gene function.
After its early adoption by a segment of the R&D community, it took another four years, from 1996-
2000 for a dominant design to establish. At first, there were numerous vendors with different
technology platforms/architectures (e.g. Affymetrix, Agilent and Motorla to name a few). Before the
emergence of a dominant platform, adoption of a particular technology was hindered since scientists
Revenue and Profit Trend for Affymetrix
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
$(MM)
Revenue
Profits
Figure 6
21. 20
were seeking referencing and validation from their peers. Only around 1999-2001 when the
Affymetrix chip and its complementary software emerged as the “standard” did its level of use take
off.
The PCR and gene-chip examples show that even if a technology has, in concept, a clear value
proposition to scientists, its wide spread
adoption depend on both its ease in
achieving a dominant design form and
its complementary asset requirements.
Figure 7 on the left depicts some
existing platform technologies and their
positioning along the dominant design
and complementary asset axis.
Complex and emerging technologies
with an unclear dominant design form
AND/OR require high amounts of
complementary assets will face higher
challenges in achieving commercial
viability and wide usage.
Historically, most of the breakthrough technologies have spawned out of biotechnology startups or
from academia research.
Shortcomings with technology development in academia: The biggest issue with academia-based
innovation is ironically also the source of its strengths, namely its incentive and cultural structure.
The currency of academia is publications in top-tier journals where revolutionary concepts and
breakthroughs are rewarded rather than application utility. Thus, platform technologies coming out of
academia tend to be revolutionary rather than evolutionary, with potentially high value but low
dominant design form. Moreover, these technologies often have a high complementary asset hurdle
(deep expertise to operate and to interpret, ancillary complex technologies, etc.). Another added
tension is that interdisciplinary R&D in academia is still challenging. In biological/biomedical
research, it is pivotal for scientists to attain the first or last author position in journal publications
since the “authorship position” is a principle metric of scientific merit. This necessarily encourages
small group collaborations and/or projects with limited breadth of scope since the reward system is
Figure 7
22. 21
built to recognize individual performance rather than team based progress. As such, academia
initiatives are biased toward:
i) Developing emerging technologies that are hard to achieve dominant design form and
possess high complementary asset hurdles. In addition, academia does not have the
incentive structure or resources to take these high potential prototypes into the
commercialization stage.
ii) Developing technologies in small personnel groups, not spanning more than 1 or 2
disciplines. This impedes the development of either crucial complementary assets or the
core of interdisciplinary technologies.
Moreover, academia initiatives are not focused on evolutionary technologies (i.e. those in the SW
quadrant in Figure 7), that can nevertheless deliver large economic value.
Are biotechnology startups the answer?: At first glance, the biotechnology sector seems ideal for
new technology development. The combination of its small size and entrepreneurial culture
combined with VC backed money should encourage the commercialization of application based
technology. The biotech industry structure presents two critical challenges:
First, the industry structure creates a tension for technology development. On one hand, most biotech
startups are funded by VC money and are under a definite time pressure to create a viable exit
strategy such as an acquisition by big pharma. This fundamentally limits biotechs’ pursuits to the
relative short term (<10 year horizon) window. On the other hand, due to its close ties to academia,
biotech mostly work on technological endeavors with a long path to a dominant design form and
require a high complementary asset hurdle; these technologies are risky, costly and often require a
long time horizon to perfect into a commercially viable form. In addition, the biotech industry is
fragmented, characterized by intense competition, lack of data/knowledge sharing and repeated
failures and reinventing the wheel inside closed walls. This further exacerbates the time horizon
required for commercialization.
Second, biotech’s industry structure does not create a high profitability opportunity for platform
technology development15
. Value creation does not imply value capture. The industry is fragmented
whereas the downstream consumers (i.e. the handful of big pharmas and research institutes) are
consolidated and thus have bargaining power advantage. The industry fragmentation persists in part
due to the relative ease of entry; armed with a cool academia prototype and a few million venture
dollars, someone can enter and compete in the biotech platform technology sector. In Figure 5 we
23. 22
see that even for Affymetrix, a successful platform technology that has both reached industry-wide
adoption and produced documented breakthroughs in how scientists perform discovery work related
to gene expression analysis, it has yet to realize a net NPV positive scenario for its investors.
Big pharma can address the untapped innovation space: Big pharma can fill the void in the
technology innovation space not covered by academia and biotech, namely:
• Developing evolutionary technology that improve the speed and/or accuracy of an existing
process or activity in R&D (e.g. automating certain mundane experimental tasks, developing
software for better information exchange within a large R&D facility, etc.)
• Developing revolutionary technology with high complexity in achieving dominant design form
AND/OR requiring significant complementary assets (e.g. protein expression chips); these
technologies often take 10+ years to perfect.
• Developing large team based, interdisciplinary technology requiring talented personnel and a
new incentive structure for rewarding team-based results rather than personal achievement (e.g.
developing a microscopy system for automatic profiling of drug effects on cells require expertise
from physicists, computer scientists, biologists and pharmacologists )
Specifically, big pharma can achieve these objectives through a cooperation model such as a
technology innovation consortium. The consortium should have autonomy, long term funding and
focus on platform based technologies that will benefit all the participants rather than specific product
classes (i.e. a positive sum rather than a zero sum game). The specific challenges include:
• Managing the ownership of intellectual properties and valuating the resulting intangible assets
• Prioritizing research projects and attributing future payoffs commensurate with the participants
level of resource contribution while ensuring that the fidelity of the consortium’s mission of
advancing productivity enhancing platform technologies and not product specific endeavors.
• Establishing an incentive system and culture that encourages team-based, multi-disciplinary
progress.
Some of the above challenges such as the last bullet-point are starting to be addressed by forward
looking foundation initiatives. For example, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in 2005 devoted
$1B in funding to establish Janelia Farm, an autonomous research institute to focus on cutting edge,
interdisciplinary R&D on neuroscience as well as the relevant imaging technologies16
. The premise
of Janelia Farm is to create an incentive structure and culture amenable for team based, multi-
disciplinary research lacking in academia.
24. 23
The key benefits of a pharma based consortium for platform technology development are:
• Risk pooling so that no one firm bears all the idiosyncratic risk of failure.
• Aggregation of resources and talent.
• Cooperation to expand the size of the pie (developing basic tools that will enhance everyone’s
productivity) rather than closed door competition which increases overall cost/spending.
• Minimize stalling on progress due to inability to come together on issues of data and technology
standards.
Platform technologies can bring orders of magnitude improvement in the speed or scope of certain
discovery processes. Although the current commercialization environment of academia and VC
funded biotechnology play important roles in developing & commercializing new platform
technologies, their inherent industry structural factors leave certain regions in the “innovation space”
untapped. Big pharmaceuticals can create a cooperative consortium marketplace to tap into those
innovation opportunities to advance and commercialize technologies for increasing R&D
productivity.
4.3 Open Source Innovation
I. Overview of Open-source and Pharma
Open-source is a way of collaborating in the research and development of some end product, most
famously software such as Linux starting in the 1990s. The chief founder of open-source was Linus
Torvalds, who brought together programmers on the early Internet to add features to his operating
system and incrementally improve the code. From Linux, the software industry expanded to include
thousands of development efforts, many of which are gathered on public forums for open-source
projects such as SourceForge. Developers collaborate, publish the software under a public license,
then offer it at no cost to the public. As interest is increased, others join the project and add features
and submit their ideas to the open-source home page. If the new feature is good enough, it becomes
part of the standard release of the software.
The key attributes of open-source are sharing of information in an incremental, cumulative fashion
across companies, institutions, areas of expertise, and platforms of research. Individuals contribute
25. 24
their efforts for free, with the understanding that it will be published under a public domain license
for non-profit use by all.
As the pharmaceutical industry has become increasingly focused on harnessing IT systems and
developing computational approaches to finding new solutions, the possibility for applying open-
source in pharma has become a topic of interest. Open-source approaches have already emerged in
biotechnology. An example is the international effort to sequence the human genome. All resulting
data is in the public domain.
We will explore open-source to gain understanding of the following:
Benefits: What is the impetus behind open-source and how might it benefit pharma R&D?
Barriers and Potential Solutions: Given the enormously complex and costly nature of pharma
R&D, what specific problems might arise and how could they be addressed?
Potential for Applying in Today’s Environment: Has anything resembling open-source been
achieved in pharma R&D today? Can the barriers be overcome or will the applicability
remain limited?
II. Benefits of Open-source
Creativity
One of the main benefits of open-source is to improve creativity by putting together the best minds
on one problem, regardless of organizational affiliation. Research on biomedical innovation has
shown that innovation increases when scientists from diverse backgrounds interact on a regular basis,
without formal hierarchy. 7
Open-source would leverage the best scientists from around the world to
tackle enormously difficult diseases. A problem today with pharma R&D is that failure can occur at
numerous stages, and researchers in the pharma company may not have the solution. However,
outsiders might be able to see the problem from a different view and break the impasse. Open-source
would involve a larger population compared to the research staff of an individual pharma.
7
Hollingsworth, J. R. in Creating a Tradition of Biomedical Research (ed. Stapleton, D.) 17–63 (Rockefeller Univ.
Press, New York, 2004).
26. 25
Karim Lakhani of Harvard Business School conducted research on the "The Value of Openness in
Scientific Problem Solving.” 166 scientific problems from 26 firms were addressed over four years.
The research found that outsiders were most likely to find answers to a scientific problem when the
issue was “broadcast” for public solutions. 8 Of course there were basic requirements for
participation, such as minimal levels of expertise. And as we will see later, not all outside
participants would have access to the equipment or funding needed to perform tests. But both overall
results and anecdotal evidence from the Harvard experiment showed the impressive success of
outsiders. One major biotech firm sent its problem related to rapid detection of DNA sequences, after
reaching stalemate internally following months of work. They offered prize money and broadcast the
problem to outsiders, and after 4 weeks of participation by 574 scientists, they received 42 proposals.
The winning proposal was from a scientist in Finland who worked in a different field, but was able to
use a common methodology to achieve an elegant solution.8
Another potential creativity benefit is that publishing results of unrelated experiments might allow
scientists to tap core component parts for use in their work. This could promote specific research
areas. The idea is to create a “core signature,” or “connectivity map” of an experiment related to any
given set of compounds or conditions, and then put it into a database for future searching. 9
Speed
A second area of improvement would potentially be speed of innovation. This revolves largely
around the issue of intellectual property. A key motivator for IP rights is the creation of incentives
for investment. However, due to the current patent system, it is possible to patent broad areas (such
as targets or pathways) that might prevent other firms from innovating in that area. This is called
“strategic patenting.” The problem is that researchers might have to negotiate expensive licenses, or
may be denied access. This creates a transaction cost, and could delay cumulative research efforts.
Studies focusing on the net benefit or loss to society associated with strategic patenting haven’t
shown that is obviously a bad policy. However, they have shown that this patenting may cause
researchers to pursue other areas of work rather than cumulative research. Such an implication would
8
Lakhani, Karim; Lagace, Martha. Open Source Science: A New Model for Innovation. Harvard Business School
Working Knowledge. November 20, 2006.
9
Friend, Stephen; Dai, Hongyue. Accelerating drug discovery: Open source cancer cell biology? Cancer Cell, Nov.
2006. 349-351.
27. 26
potentially represent one reason why pharma R&D began to focus on so many novel targets during
the late 1990’s.
One case study of the problems with licensing is found in CellPro, a former Seattle, Washington
cancer biotech. CellPro had created a novel cell separation device, but was challenged by Johns
Hopkins University, which had a broad patent related to the antibody area. CellPro was unable to
license the technology because JHU had already licensed it to two competing biotech firms. Even
though CellPro’s technology was only loosely related, the firm ultimately went bankrupt due to the
patent battle. Open-source would allow for community property rights for such basic upstream
patents. Speed would also benefit from fewer committees, compared to internal development in large
pharma firms. 10
Risk sharing
A third potential benefit is risk sharing. Scientists could collaborate on the early, most risky stages of
research such as qualifying targets, finding biomarkers, or understanding basic cell characteristics.
There has recently been a debate regarding the sharing of negative results. Advocates, such as Merrill
Goozner of the Washington, DC’s Center for Science in the Public Interest, believe that sharing
Phase 1 failures would reduce dead-end research. 11
Currently many companies share results of Phase
2 through 3 trials in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. As of March 2007, ClinicalTrials.gov currently
contains more than 36,100 clinical studies sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, other
federal agencies, and private industry. However, the industry group Pharmaceutical Researchers and
Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) believes that because Phase 1 trials are exploratory, sharing
them would be unproductive and would stifle innovation by releasing sensitive competitive
information. 12
A novel approach to sharing data would be required to allow firms to truly pool risk from early stage
research. This will be discussed later in the “Potential Models” section under “Voluntary Publication
of Fundamental Knowledge.”
10
Munos, Bernard. Can open-source R&D reinvigorate drug research? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. August 18,
2006.
11
Bouchie, Aaron. Clinical Trial Data: To Disclose or Not to Disclose? Nature Biotechnology, Volume 24 Number
9, Sept. 2006. 1058-1061.
12
Niman, Neil; Kench, Brian. Open Source and the Future of the Pharmaceutical Industry. DRUID Summer
Conference 2004.
28. 27
Impact
A fourth benefit is the ability to harness scientists from less developed areas of the world who have
close contact with some of the diseases under research. These researchers may not have similar
capabilities to the pharma firms, but through open-source they could benefit from knowledge sharing
and help impact the treatment of neglected diseases in their home country. Public-Private
Partnerships (PPP’s), discussed later, provide this type of unification towards research in areas such
as malaria and tropical diseases. 13
Also, the impact of research would benefit from fewer distracting motives. The goal of an open-
source development would be therapeutic value solely, as opposed to other motives such as brand
differentiation or patent potential. In essence then, it would discourage the creation of me-too drugs
and shift medical resources towards novel therapeutic areas. Beyond anecdotal evidence in the
market, studies have shown that competitors are often patenting similar therapies with slight
differences. 12 Follow-on, cumulative research could prove more beneficial to society.
Agility
In open-source, projects can be easily discontinued if the results do not look promising. In traditional
pharma firms, molecules in the late stages of development may be harder to kill because careers are
tied to their outcome. This will depend on the incentive and reward structure as well as company
culture. According to Bryce Carmine, President Global Brand Development of Eli Lilly, any
organization will deal with internal politics to some extent, and projects might not always be halted at
the optimal point for the company due to internal coordination delays.
Affordability
One potential attribute of open-source is the donation of resources by people and organizations
towards common goals. If there is capital equipment (such as computational time on corporate
mainframes) that is being sub-optimally used, open-source could more efficiently utilize society’s
resources across organizations. Small organizations could also gain access to equipment and research
talent typically only afforded by the largest firms or institutes. Unused capacity also impacts speed, if
there are issues with queuing in the laboratory.
13
http://www.tropicaldisease.org
29. 28
III. Barriers and Potential Solutions
If it were easy to implement a model with such great benefits, presumably it would already have been
done. There are very difficult problems that must be addressed before open-source can function in
pharma, such as economic incentives and management of the effort. William Dempsey, President of
Abbott Laboratories, commented that Abbott has been trying to engage in more partnerships but
coordination alone is a huge challenge. He said it is often difficult to decide who gets to make key
decisions during each stage, and what the goals should be.
Economic Barriers
Economic incentives are a significant barrier. The pharma industry is able to invest in drug
development costing over $800 million because of the expectation of monopoly profits during the
patent exclusivity period. Open-source software development requires only a computer and internet
connection. Clinical trials require enormous resources to plan and execute.
Potential Solutions: Some have proposed that the government should fund open-source initiatives
through universities as a coordinating mechanism. (Discussed in detail in “Potential Models: Medical
Innovation Prize Fund.”) This already occurs to some extent. The approach would be to charge a
yearly membership fee to a database of open-source knowledge. The fee would be structured in a
multiple-tiered tariff system to account for the level of usage of the data and appropriately charge
members for their benefit from the knowledge.
Critical Analysis: However, who would decide which projects receive funding? Currently the
National Institutes of Health have some funds and ability to decide upon projects. Open-source
committees could theoretically apply to some part of the government for funding. But if society is
staking a large % of its GDP on funding open-source, there would need to be a broader, more reliable
decision process. Today, capital markets decide which companies are funded, and relying upon
government to regulate the industry would be very questionable.
Coordination and Leadership Barriers
A second issue with open-source is the problem of coordination. Project management expertise exists
in major pharmas today. While researchers might be able to devote a fraction of their free time to
30. 29
open-source, gaining the full services of a senior leader might be difficult given that they have signed
NDAs and vested their career (through personal relationships and financial commitments such as
stock options) in a particular corporation.
In contrast to software development, which primarily requires programming expertise, pharma
research cuts across multiple disciplines and is highly complex. Significant coordination is needed
because problem-solving is not as modular and it would be impossible for one person to keep track of
the information needed. Biomedical knowledge is complex and expands at 1,000 publications per
day, all requiring peer review.
Potential Solutions: PPPs provide possibly the best example of coordination. Virtual R&D is
conducted through contracts, relationships, and coordinating bodies. For an illustration of this
dynamic. Another possible idea would be to harness entrepreneurs as coordinating leaders. If projects
are public, entrepreneurs can gather information on promising investments and fund coordination
teams that provide leadership.
Critical Analysis: In pharma, if one misstep is made, such as a wrong target or improper toxicology
report, a late-stage effort can fail. This makes the process of accepting new approaches slower than
software, where a change can be accepted into the project with little fanfare. Testing is vastly
different, because while software undergoes “debugging” and user testing, the cost is hugely lower
31. 30
than clinical trials and does not require FDA oversight. Solutions such as PPPs have limited
applicability to diseases such as malaria because scientists are willing to devote time to developing
nations. It would be nearly impossible to transition more of pharma development to this model,
because coordination for more complex entities such as cancer would not be viable in a PPP model.
Regulation and Intellectual Property
Due to safety and health concerns, pharma research is highly regulated in contrast to software. The
software industry’s intellectual property system does not rely solely upon patents, because code is
protected by copyright as it is written. In contast, drug patents must meet stricter standards of
innovation and are expensive to submit. Quality control will be critical for a project with numerous
diverse contributors.
Potential Solutions: This problem comes back to funding and coordination. Clinical trials must be run
with adequate resources and strict processes. There is no solution except adequate funding and good
management teams for this problem.
Critical Analysis: This issue is looming in the nascent Public Private Partnerships around Tropical
Disease, many of which have not reached late stage. It may be necessary to relegate later stage
development to traditional pharma, leaving early discovery to open-source.
Motivation and Availability of Talent
In software, projects can exist based on the work of only a few contributors. New versions of Linux
may be the work of a team of six people. Pharma requires huge teams of researchers. Why would
these people devote their time for free? In the Harvard study, the contributing researchers were
divided between those who wanted the prize money and those who wanted a challenge to satisfy their
idealism or curiosity. Even if they wanted to devote their time, would they be allowed? NDAs are a
significant issue to participation. Also, because research contributions are voluntary, there is the issue
of sustainability, with talent potentially coming in and out of the project according to their
willingness to participate.
Potential Solutions: Pharma firms could generate goodwill by allowing scientists to devote a portion
of their week to public-benefit open-source projects.
32. 31
Critical Analysis: Some have speculated that the upcoming retirement of baby boomer scientists
could create a pool of researchers willing to devote time to worthy initiatives. However, this is not
realistic given the amount of human work required, so it would be necessary for broader groups of
scientists to donate time. This is possible for small projects, but for larger efforts it would seem quite
difficult to expect enough labor to volunteer.
IV. Potential for Application in Today’s Environment
Pharma has yet to create a truly open-source initiative that has resulted in a finished product similar
to a blockbuster drug, but some newly developed organizations have similarities to such a model.
Bioinformatics Initiatives
Efforts resembling open-source first occurred in initiatives such as the Human Genome Project.
Various programs such as Biojava, BioPerl, BioPython, Bio-SPICE, BioRuby and Simple Molecular
Mechanics for Proteins14
shared results in a way similar to open-source, though not everyone could
participate. More recent organizations include the SNP Consortium, the Alliance for Cellular
Signaling, BioForge, GMOD and Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s BioBricks.15
Public-Private Partnerships
Starting six years ago, new organizations began to form to address neglected diseases. These
organizations, Public-Private Partnerships, use aspects of open-source and outsourcing models. One
such group is the Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV). This was created in 1999 to develop
antimalarial drugs that are more affordable for developing countries. The MMV group has 19
projects, a staff of 13, a scientific advisory committee, and project managers who manage the
development. 300 scientists at 40 organizations (ranging from academia to pharma) contribute their
time. Projects are received through “open calls,” allowing for anyone to submit an idea for review by
the advisory board.
According to the Initiative on PPPs, there are approximately 24 PPPs working on drugs and vaccines.
They typically work on neglected diseases and have projects in discovery through Phase 3 trials.
14
Eisenmenger, F., Hansmann, U. H. E., Hayryan, S. & Hu, C. An enhanced version of SMMP — open-source
software package for simulation of proteins. Computer Phys. Comm. 174, 422–429 (2006).
15
DeLano, W. L., The case for open-source software in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today10, 213–217 (2005).
33. 32
Because R&D is outsourced to contributors who devote their time, each project is small, with lean
budgets rarely greater than $50 million. 16
This makes PPPs a good way to fund projects large
pharma would not be interested in running, but unlikely to fund large efforts similar to many of
traditional pharma’s projects.
Voluntary Publication of Fundamental Knowledge by Pharmaceuticals
Novartis made a move towards greater data sharing by publishing the genes likely to be associated
with diabetes. In partnership with Lund University in Sweden and the Broad Institute in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, the cooperative ran a study with 3,000 people to compare and locate the genes. By
publishing a database library containing results of the research, other firms can avoid investing in
fundamental research of 20,000 genes and begin to work on applied cures. 17
Informal Clinical Trials through Field Discovery
In a recent study, it was shown that 59% of drug therapy were discovered by practicing clinicians via
field discovery. This idea is supported by Dr. von Hippel at MIT, who advocates decentralizing the
process for obtaining data on off-label use by collaborating with volunteer doctors and patients. This
off-label trial and error practice cannot be endorsed and supported by pharma firms directly, but
represents a fast and inexpensive way to trial drugs such as cancer treatments in different types of
applications. 18
Prize Funds: Medical Innovation Prize Fund
To address the barrier of economic incentive, some have proposed a prize fund created by the public.
One such proposal was the Medical Innovation Price Act of 2005, which was a bill that would have
created a fund to reward innovative research and support areas such as neglected diseases. Instead of
granting patent rights and using a system of pricing to reimburse innovation, the fund would price
drugs at generic levels immediately. Firms or projects creating a successful product would receive
prize payouts for 10 years, based upon the novel therapy benefit and success of the product in the
16
Gardner, C. & Garner, C. Technology Licensing to nontraditional partners: non-profit health product development
organizations for better global health. Industry Higher Education 19, 241–247 (2005).
17
Herper, Matthew. Biology Goes Open Source. Forbes Magazine. Feburary 12, 2007.
18
DeMonaco, H. J., Ali, A. & Von Hippel, E. The major role of clinicians in the discovery of off-label drug
therapies. MIT Sloan Working Paper 4552-05 (2005).
34. 33
market. The fund was intended to have $60 billion, or .5% of the U.S. GDP. 19
Prize payouts for
drugs with similarity to existing therapies would receive less prize money, perhaps reducing “me-
too” drugs.
The bill, proposed by Rep. Sanders of Vermont, received little support and died in the Intellectual
Property Subcommittee. A similar initiative was started by the World Health Organization, proposing
that a percentage of GDP from every member country be committed towards a fund. The Medical
Development and Innovation Treaty was referred to a task force in May 2006 and has seen little
further development.20
Clearly radical solutions such as this are not possible yet, and any open-
source efforts will need to start with hybrid, small steps.
V. Open-source’s Potential for the Future
While open-source is a novel idea with some advantages, in today’s environment there would seem
to be limited applicability. Certain areas such as tropical diseases have benefited from open-source
initiatives, but to apply the model more broadly would require substantial changes to how healthcare
is funded and perceived. It is not clear that open-source would be substantially better than the
innovation produced by traditional pharma, and working outside of IP protection would do little to
motivate investment in the projects. Still, making small steps towards sharing of information such as
targets could be helpful to increasing speed and creativity among firms who are facing innovation
trouble. The impetus will have to come from within pharma, rather than government regulators. If the
innovation troubles continue within pharma pipelines, we may see an increased willingness to join
alliances and share information in ways that resemble open-source models, but it is unlikely that we
will see anything as full-fledged as in the software industry.
19
Lyles, Alan. Creating Alternative Incentives for Pharmaceutical Innovation. Clinical Therapeutics, Volume 28,
Number 1, 2006.
20
Love, James. A new initiative at the WHO: Prizes rather than prices. Column in Le Monde Diplomatique. May
31, 2006.
35. 34
Appendices
Appendix 1A – The number of deals/partnerships between Pharma & Biotech has increased
dramatically in the past decade
Appendix 1B – Selected Pharma/Biotech Partnering Deals in 2005
Number of Biotech-Big Pharma Collaborations
between 1993-2005
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Sources: Adapted from Burrill & Company Presentiation, Bio 2006
36. 35
Appendix 2: PCR and GeneChip Microarray
Adoption and impact of PCR: Discovered in 1983, Polymerase Chain
Reaction is a technique that enables the large scale replication of DNA
without the use of a living organism. In essence, PCR is a factory that
achieves astronomical scale economy improvements for making copies of
DNA segments. The workhorse of that factory is an enzyme called DNA
polymerase, a molecule found in cells whose function is to replicate/copy
DNA during cell division. Although scientists knew of DNA polymerase,
extracting it into a stable, heat resistant form out of its natural cellular
context had been a show-stopping challenge. In 1983 a scientist named Kary Mullis made a
groundbreaking discovery of Thermus aquaticus, an organism that lived and flourished in
environments of extreme temperature of up 230˚F (e.g. geysers and geological vents). These
organisms evolved to survive extreme temperatures and thus Dr Mullis reasoned their cells and
components in their cells should also be resistant to heat, in particular the DNA polymerase enzyme.
In 1993, only ten years after his discovery, Dr Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize for PCR and its
impact on accelerating the pace of scientific discoveries.
Adoption and impact of Microarrays: Originally invented in the late 1980s by
Steven Fodor at the startup firm Affymetrix, the micro-array is a glass based
technology that allows the parallel interrogation of the RNA level of tens of
thousands of 32-mer gene sequence probes. This is essentially a massive parallel
scaling of the traditional “Southern method” for gene expression analysis. Due
to its complex requirements on complementary assets such as sophisticated
statistical noise analysis software, as well as heated competition among vendors
such as Affymetrix, Agilent and Illumina to establish their architectural design
as the industry standard, the adoption of microarray took much longer than PCR to diffuse across the
biopharma industry. Nevertheless, the microarray technology has significantly increased the speed,
scope and power of RNA based expression studies that have led to fresh insights into basic science as
well as new clinical applications. For example, microarrays have paved new avenues for detecting
alternative gene splice forms21
, predicting cancer treatment outcome and disease states at the
molecular level22
, and in identifying new targets for therapeutic drugs23
.
21
Johnson JM, et. al., “Genome wide survey of human alternative pre-mRNA splicing with exon junction
microarrays”, Science, 2003 Dec 19
22
Laura Van’t Veer & Daphne De Jong, “The Microarray way to tailored cancer treatment”, Nature
Medicine,2002
23
Shawn E Levy, “Microarray analysis in drug discovery: an uplifting view of depression”, Science 2003 Oct 2003
37. 36
References
1 FDA’s CDER annual reports and author’s analysis
2 Adopted from: R&D in the Pharmaceutical Industry, A Congress of the US Budget Office Study, Oct 2006
3 DiMasi M, et. al., The Price of Innovation: new estimates of drug development costs, J of Health Econ.
(22)2003
4 Med Ad News, April Issue, various years
5 McKinnon R, et. al., Crisis? What Crisis? A fresh diagnosis of pharma’s R&D productivity crunch., Marakon
Associates Report, 2004
6 Grabowski H, Are the Economics of Pharmaceutical R&D Changing?, PharmacoEconomics (22) Suppl 2,
2004
7 Gilbert J, Henske P, Singh A, Rebuilding Big Pharma’s Business Model, In Vivo – The Business & Medicine
Report, Nov 2003
8 Ed. Burns LR, Chapter 2, The Business of Healthcare Innovation, Cambridge University Press 2005
9 Booth B and Zemmel R, Prospects for productivity, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, Vol 3, May 2004
10 The Drug Drought, Pharmaceutical Executive, Nov 1, 2002
11 Pisano G, Can Science Be A Business?, Harvard Business Review, Oct 2006
12 Henderson R and Cockbrun I, “Scale and Scope in Drug Development: Unpacking the Advantages of Size
in Pharmaceutical Research”, Journal of Health Economics (20), 2001.
13 Ed. Burns LR, Chapter 5, The Business of Healthcare Innovation, Cambridge University Press 2005
14 Biotechnology Annual Conference 2006, Burrill & Company Presentation
15 Sustaining Platforms, Chpt 4 in Kellogg on Biotechnology, Northwestern University Press, 2005
16 The philosophy behind HMMI’s Janelia Farm Institute, http://www.hhmi.org/janelia/philosophy.html