Derek Lowe writes about a great article in the February issue of The Scientist. The anonymous author discusses the flaws in the R&D model among major pharma companies and develops an interesting method of fixing them: Go Hollywood!
Big Pharma continues to follow the old studio model, though there are signs that this may be changing. A similar and necessary evolution to what Hollywood underwent in the 1950s may be beginning, with increasingly more drugs being discovered outside Big Pharma, presumably because the R&D process elsewhere is more conducive to creativity. Biotechs or small pharma settings tend to be flexible and nonhierarchical, with a tolerance for mistakes and constructive dissent — all characteristics of environments that nurture creativity and innovation. Consequently, the trend towards more drugs being discovered outside Big Pharma is likely to accelerate.
There is a precedent for pharma emulating Hollywood: Pharma’s main preoccupation, the creation of blockbusters, was directly copied from Hollywood. The blockbuster model is really defined by broad and aggressive marketing, though the term is less accurately, if more commonly, used to define revenue thresholds. Hollywood’s blockbuster model was created in 1951, when the term was first applied to the movie Quo Vadis because of its then-huge budget of $7 million and the unprecedented zeal of its promotion.
I know it sounds bizarre, and it may be dry subject matter, but this is a really compelling opinion piece, and I think laymen (like myself) can gain a lot of perspective from it on some of the problems with developing new drugs.
You’re right, this is certainly a good way of looking at things. However, I think big companies in most industries are guilty of this. Big doesn’t mean creative it just means lots of $$$ to throw at projects! In the long run that doesn’t work.
I hear that! I think it’s a particular problem for pharma, which is so dependent on R&D innovations. It seems that there’s only so far industrialization of R&D can go.
The commenters on Derek’s blog have taken up that thread; while Genentech is in good shape now, it’ll eventually grow too big and will calcify. I’m not sure how a company stays innovative at scale. You could argue that Apple has manged that awfully well, but you can also argue that Apple’s not truly a major player in the PC world, with a single-digit market share.
it’s particularly difficult when the company is publicly held (a near necessity for companies at this size), since they have to show returns from quarter to quarter, further cramping their ability to grow a product gradually.
In that respect, the industry does parallel the big studio movie biz, which will pull out of marketing a flick if it doesn’t draw huge box office in its first weekend. . .