Pharma hires another academic whiz kid to head up neuropsychiatric drug discovery. It doesn’t matter whether this occurred a month ago or a year ago, this approach has been tried over and over, and it very rarely (ever?) works.
What’s the appeal, and what’s the reality?
Pharma is led by business folk; it is a business after all. And business folks know you have to stay at least one step ahead of the competition, have the newest technology, the newest gizmo, the newest… And, they have been taught, and may even have supporting personal experience, that a company needs to have a new idea about every 3-4 years. In most businesses, new ideas become products in a couple of years. In Pharma, 3-4 years is like the first inning in baseball – you have to play it, it may set up opportunities and challenges for the rest of the game, but it sure doesn’t win the game, doesn’t count as
anything in your overall stats. Still, we drag in the new shooting star – who’s probably worked 15 years to build up
their own special knowledge and viewpoint in, say, basketball – and expect them to become .400 hitters in a year or two. It’s a bad situation for Pharma, because it rarely develops a new product, and it’s bad for the whiz kid because they’re thrown into the lion’s den, with no training or mentor.
anything in your overall stats. Still, we drag in the new shooting star – who’s probably worked 15 years to build up
their own special knowledge and viewpoint in, say, basketball – and expect them to become .400 hitters in a year or two. It’s a bad situation for Pharma, because it rarely develops a new product, and it’s bad for the whiz kid because they’re thrown into the lion’s den, with no training or mentor.
I’m not totally surprised that business people turn to outside whiz kids to fix things. Too often neuropsychiatric drug discovery and development is slow, and numerous explanations such as the difficulty of the BBB and poor animal models are presented as reasons. Heard repeatedly, it would be difficult not to view these ‘explanations’ as platitudes, excuses,
or a lack of expertise within the Neuroscience group.
or a lack of expertise within the Neuroscience group.
So, Pharma needs new idea guys (no gender implied), but what do they need to do? We generally need new ideas related to classes of drug targets, how to assay their activity, and how to investigate disorders with unmet needs. What we don’t have is time for the whiz kid to become pharmaceutical scientists or managers; this takes years and they may not be suited for it
anyway. Yet we put them in charge, managing activities that they are unfamiliar with, confusing everyone. Instead, let’s have them take a sabbatical from their present, generally academic, position for two years. Position them as Chief Scientific or Technology Consultant, let them interact with staff and make changes in processes and viewpoints, but still have a pharmaceutical director in charge of target and drug discovery and development. This keeps the engine running developing new therapeutics while it gives the whiz kid a well-defined transition process – slip back into their academic
position with some fabulous information/experience to dole out to their colleagues, or choose to stay within pharma.
anyway. Yet we put them in charge, managing activities that they are unfamiliar with, confusing everyone. Instead, let’s have them take a sabbatical from their present, generally academic, position for two years. Position them as Chief Scientific or Technology Consultant, let them interact with staff and make changes in processes and viewpoints, but still have a pharmaceutical director in charge of target and drug discovery and development. This keeps the engine running developing new therapeutics while it gives the whiz kid a well-defined transition process – slip back into their academic
position with some fabulous information/experience to dole out to their colleagues, or choose to stay within pharma.
No comments:
Post a Comment