1932

Abstract

With pharmaceutical companies shrinking their research departments and exiting out of efforts related to unprofitable diseases, society has become increasingly dependent on academic institutions to perform drug discovery and early-stage translational research. Academic drug discovery and translational research programs assist in shepherding promising therapeutic opportunities through the so-called valley of death in the hope that a successful new drug will result in saved lives, improved health, economic growth, and financial return. We have interviewed directors of 16 such academic programs in the United States and found that these programs and the projects therein face numerous challenges in reaching the clinic, including limited funding, lack of know-how, and lack of a regional drug development ecosystem. If these issues can be addressed through novel industry partnerships, the revision of government policies, and expanded programs in translational education, more effective new therapies are more likely to reach patients in need.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010818-021625
2019-01-06
2024-11-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/pharmtox/59/1/annurev-pharmtox-010818-021625.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010818-021625&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. US Dep. Health Hum. Serv. 2017. NIH budget overview Rep., Natl. Inst. Health, US Dep. Health Hum. Serv Washington, DC: https://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy2017/budget-in-brief/nih/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. Natl. Inst. Health. 2017. Mission and goals Natl. Inst. Health Washington, DC: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/mission-goals
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.  Chakravarthy R, Cotter K, DiMasi J, Milne CP, Wendel N 2016. Public- and private-sector contributions to the research and development of the most transformational drugs in the past 25 years: from theory to therapy. Ther. Innov. Regul. Sci. 50:759–68
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.  Butler D 2008. Translational research: crossing the valley of death. Nature 453:840–42
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.  Prince M, Comas-Herrera A, Knapp M, Guerchet M, Karagiannidou M 2016. World Alzheimer report 2016 Rep., Alzheimer's Dis. Int London:
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.  Adam B 2018. Pfizer axing neuroscience jobs, but seeks new VC fund. FierceBiotech Jan. 7. https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/pfizer-axing-neuroscience-jobs-but-seeks-new-vc-fund
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.  Booth B 2017. Why biotech's talent, capital and returns are consolidating into two key clusters. Forbes Mar. 21. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucebooth/2017/03/21/inescapable-gravity-of-biotechs-key-clusters-the-great-consolidation-of-talent-capital-returns/#6088372352e9
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.  Norris J, Joyce T, Tolman C, Patnaik R 2018. Trends in healthcare investments and exits 2018 Rep., Silicon Valley Bank Santa Clara, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.  Norris J, Peralta K 2015. Trends in healthcare investments and exits 2015 Rep., Silicon Valley Bank Santa Clara, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.  Norris J, Schuber P, Tolman C 2016. Trends in healthcare investments and exits 2016 Rep., Silicon Valley Bank Santa Clara, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.  Norris J, Schuber P, Tolman C 2017. Trends in healthcare investments and exits 2017 Rep., Silicon Valley Bank Santa Clara, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.  Diehl P 2017. World's largest biotech hubs: Boston and the San Francisco Bay. The Balance Aug. 14. https://www.thebalance.com/boston-and-san-francisco-biotech-hubs-375641
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.  The Economist 2016. Clusterluck: Boston's biotech hub is surviving the challenge from Silicon Valley. The Economist Jan 16. https://www.economist.com/business/2016/01/16/clusterluck
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.  Adler D 2018. North Carolina's promising experiment: one state's focus on creating a skilled labor force led to a revival in manufacturing jobs. City J Mar. 29. https://www.city-journal.org/html/north-carolinas-promising-experiment-15795.html
    [Google Scholar]
  15. [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.  Kennedy J 2018. Growing the future: state efforts to advance the life sciences Rep., Inform. Technol. Innov. Found Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.  Pellerito PM, Goodno G 2012. Successful state initiatives that encourage bioscience industry growth Rep., Biotechnol. Innov. Organ. https://www.bio.org/articles/successful-state-initiatives-encourage-bioscience-industry-growth
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.  Davis G 2000. State of The State Address Speech delivered on Jan. 5. in California. http://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/s_37-davis2.html
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.  Moskowitz Grumdahl D 2015. Life saver: Robert Vince. Minneapolis St. Paul Magazine June 29. http://mspmag.com/arts-and-culture/life-saver/
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.  Smith DP 2017. The Pregabalin story: how Northwestern University transformed a $681,764 grant into a fortune of good Rep., Northwestern Univ Evanston, IL: https://research.northwestern.edu/news/pregabalin-story-turning-681764-grant-fortune-good
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.  US Copyright Off 2013. Title 37Patents, trademarks, and copyrights Code Fed. Regul Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.  McKenna L 2016. The ever-tightening job market for Ph.D.s. The Atlantic Apr. 21. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/04/bad-job-market-phds/479205/
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.  Ghaffarzadegan N, Hawley J, Larson R, Xue Y 2015. A note on PhD population growth in biomedical sciences. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 23:402–5
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. Nat. Sci. Found. 2015. Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities. 2014 Rep., Natl. Sci. Found Arlington, VA:
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.  DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW 2016. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J. Health Econ. 47:20–33
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.  Hay M, Thomas DW, Craighead JL, Economides C, Rosenthal J 2014. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat. Biotechnol. 32:40–51
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.  Wong CH, Siah KW, Lo AW 2018. Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters. Biostatistics 2018:kxx069. https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxx069
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.  Feller I, Ailes CP, Roessner JD 2002. Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: evidence from engineering research centers. Res. Policy 31:457–74
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.  Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K 2011. Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10:712
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.  Begley CG, Ellis LM 2012. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483:531–33
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.  Bissell M 2013. Reproducibility: the risks of the replication drive. Nature 503:333–34
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.  Brandt MJ, IJzerman H, Dijksterhuis A, Farach FJ, Geller J et al. 2014. The Replication Recipe: What makes for a convincing replication?. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 50:217–24
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.  Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MF, Cuthill IC et al. 2009. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLOS ONE 4:e7824
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.  Begley CG, Ioannidis JP 2015. Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ. Res. 116:116–26
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.  Munafo MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD et al. 2017. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1:0021
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.  Head ML, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn AT, Jennions MD 2015. The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLOS Biol 13:e1002106
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.  Frye S, Crosby M, Edwards T, Juliano R 2011. US academic drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10:409–10
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.  Harvard Mag 2013. Accelerating the application of biomedical discoveries. Harvard Magazine Apr. 30. https://harvardmagazine.com/2013/04/blavatnik-50-million-gift-harvard-life-sciences
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.  Bloomberg MR 2012. Mayor Bloomberg discusses how New York City's investments in industries like biotech are creating new jobs in weekly radio address. New York: 1010 WINS News Radio July 29
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.  Skyler E, Falk J 2005. Mayor Bloomberg announces developer to build largest biotech campus in New York City News Release, Aug. 10. https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/314-05/mayor-bloomberg-developer-build-largest-biotech-campus-new-york-city#/0
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.  Harris A 2015. The Big Apple's biotech dreams are stuck in the petri dish. Fast Company Feb. 24. https://www.fastcompany.com/3034774/new-york-biotech-startup-dreams
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.  Woodcock J 2017. Advancing health through innovation: 2017 new drug therapy approvals Rep., Cent. Drug Eval. Res., US Food Drug Admin Silver Spring, MD:
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.  Bornstein D 2011. Helping new drugs out of research's ‘valley of death’. The New York Times May 2. https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/helping-new-drugs-out-of-academias-valley-of-death/
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.  Radcliffe S, Claude P 2017. California life sciences industry 2018 report Rep., Calif. Life Sci. Assoc San Francisco, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010818-021625
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010818-021625
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error