>
> On patents and R&D, I have a question for those who are in the know. Now,
> all of what I say below is me mostly asking questions, and giving my
> impression of what I think the answer might be, but I would love
> for anyone
> to correct me if I am wrong.
>
> What's the translation for R&D to profit? I mean to ask, do companies tend
> to lay, say, ten R&D projects out hoping that one will deliver a feasibly
> product, and then produce say ten trial products hoping that one will be a
> major winner and then make it all back off that one? How conservative is
> the process, generally?
Actually, for therapeutics you figure it is about 10% for approval from each
drug or biologic into clinical trials, and 30% of those break even. So, a
big total of 3% are profitable and about 0.1% are considered "blockbuster"
drugs (like Viagra).
> I've been thinking is almost the opposite . . . about how the drive to
> profit might impact on the pace and nature of development -- on that kind
> of popularity that Dyson notes. ie.: "If it's a product everyone wants,
> then we'd better keep it secret till we finish it so nobody rips off our
> idea." Why, after all, would a company want to patent a specific gene or
> series, except to prevent others from researching in that area? Now,
> certainly that makes good business sense -- you want to protect your
> investment in research. The problem is, it seems to me, that it could
> easily make for a bad situation for science because it's secretive and
> avoids collaboration and cooperation of experts and inventive
> minds outside of the immediate project circle.
This is the quandry of corporate science. You have to make sure that you
have the right people from the begining to develop the idea. Actually, once
the patent is filed you can publish and interact just as any academic. I
can't stand people who think that corporate science is evil and tainted
(these people have almost never worked at companies). I decided early on
that I didn't want to write grants, so I went the corporate route. I still
publish, I still give talks at meetings, but your research must have a
therapeutic or diagnostic application. There are instances where a company
holds a patent and is ignoring the obvious scientific data and is moving
forward with products as a business decision. That certainly is not
right...
I see your logic, but since I've been on the other side... Once the gene is
patented, then if someone has an idea for using that gene product they will
approach that company and become a collaborator with the company. This
happens quite a lot, and there is a legal process for the protection of both
parties.
>
> How far off is my assessment of the situation? I've been thinking it
> because some people onlist, including Dan, have in the past posited
> arguments that scientific/technological development is slowed down because
> science is getting harder. That may be true, especially in physics (that
> and the niches that we seem to have cultivated are getting filled quicker
> and quicker), but I think there must also be a socio/economic and cultural
> component. When before now did profits play such a huge role in inhibiting
> transparent collaboration and competition throughout a field of study? Or
> am I misunderstanding the history of science before the rise of a
> megacorporation?
You certainly hit a lot of the points of problems in scientific industry. A
good scientific corporation does as little as possible to guide the
scientists in their work. The biggest problem is the business team running
over the scientific team and trying to put deadlines and deliverables to
research. This approach works reasonably well once a drug enters clinical
trials, but really can't be applied to research departments.
On the flip side, the scientist must understand that the basic premise is to
produce something useful or marketable. It is a big trade off for some
people, but I certainly don't regret my decision to go to industry. There
are still a lot of interesting things to discover, and I guess I like to
know that what I am working on will benifit people in the short term.
JeffF
