----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 6:26 PM Subject: Re: Sources of Drug Innovation
> Just replying to one point at this time (more later)- > > > Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >From: "Deborah Harrell" > > > > > > You are not taking into account the advances > made > > > > >by universities and publicly-funded institutes. > > > > > For-profit drug companies *are not* the only > or > > > > > even primary sources of drug innovation. > > > > > So, if we looked, we'd see that most of the drug > > > > patents are held by > > > > governments and universities? Or are you > talking > > > > about something different > > > > when you speak of innovation. > > > > > > Correct: drug _development_ is without question > the > > > purview of the pharmas ..<snip>..Drug _discovery_ > > > comes from multiple sources, sometimes quite > > > accidentally <snip> > > >...<snippage>said that only about 5% of drugs are > > developed from > > non-traditional sources, such as herbs or the > > example you gave. > > Fundamental research has been and is being done at > > universities and government facilities... <snip> > > Which is what I said *originally* - check that first > sentence above again. I saw your first sentence, and it is inconsistant with what I've been told by people who work in the field. Development of a drug only comes _after_ it shows promise in animal tests. That development takes years, IIRC 5 years is a goal now for fast tracked drugs, but it represents only a fraction of what drug companies do in R&D. Unlike most companies now, drug companies actually do R. They need to find the candidates in the first place....few candidates are handed to them by universities or are found by happenstance. They have to search for candidates. This search is done by trial and error sometimes, and it is now guided by computer programs that take knowledge of chemical reactions and models likely results of various chemical combinations. It is much more research than what I do, for example. It is actual trailblazing research. Part of it is semantics, I guess. But, in the world of R&D, development has a very specific meaning. Usually, with development, you know the basics of what needs to be done beforehand, it's just a matter of doing it. For example, I'm working at designing a slim neutron tool for a customer now. They've been out for 40 years, I know how I'm going to attack the problem. It's a development project. There's nothing wrong with that; no one has designed for this particular application before, and I think I'll have a superior design because I've got a few tricks that other designers don't have available. But, it is still a development project. The first compensated neutron tool was a real research project. By your standards, since quantum mechanics is known, it's just a development project, but I think that doesn't acknowledge what it takes to innovate. Let me try one more example. By your standards, only Maxwell could be credited for finding E&M. Everything else (radio, radar, TV, generators) was just development. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
