Fast Track to Your Ideas..

Big Pharma has been pulling out of Neuroscience in Europe and UK big pharma has all but gone.

They have closed down their R & D departments and now have pipelines that are becoming dry, so what do they do. 

Feed off Academia

A lot cheaper than employing people. 

Will this bring the cost of the drugs down……..OK who am I kidding.

There are 30,000 genes in the genome, so plenty of targets so give em your ideas, you know where you can find them. They know how to exploit.

What do they do with the ideas they don’t fund, or the ideas that ideas create?

About the author



    • FYI

      Sanoobar M, Eghtesadi S, Azimi A, Khalili M, Khodadadi B, Jazayeri S, Gohari MR, Aryaeian N. Coenzyme Q10 supplementation ameliorates inflammatory markers in patients with multiple sclerosis: a double blind, placebo, controlled randomized clinical trial.Nutr Neurosci. 2014 Jan 10. [Epub ahead of print]

      If academia had government funding they could do a lot more but remember trials are hugely expensive but we do them and then what? How do we get the treatment past the regulators

    • You don't need to get treatment past the regulators since you can buy Q10 over the counter at any drug store. Maybe academia should just do the trials with promising over the counter agents to prove whether it works or not. That's as far as it needs to go. If the government wants drug costs reduced, investing in these types of trials could reap benefits. Vitamin D is another example that is an over the counter agent that has evidence to improve health in many other conditions as well as ms. Pharma won't investigate it but it should be of interest to government health agencies.

    • Kudos to GSK for realizing collaboration between pharma and academia is a win for both parties, academia gets paid for discovery and pharma buys the rights for trials, manufacturing and marketing. If pharma is reluctant to perform trials on a promising drug then the government should evaluate and fund the project. Even though it is expensive it should save money in the long run. Since the UK has strong academic institutions it doesn't make sense for companies to abandon this resource. It's understandable that manufacturing will take place in more cost effective countries as long as the process is stringently regulated.

    • If there are licenced treatments for an indication Doctors have a responsibility to use them.

      So your model is do a phase II/III trial get positive results and then it is free for all.

      Maybe this is the model that non-pharma adopt and stick to over the counter treatments as there is not sufficient resource to do drug licensing studies.

      There is no need for independent body to assess the results. Does it matter where the work is published…maybe we don't need to be published, we can just stick it on twitter that it works but hey isn't this how FAD treatments get spread?

    • Not at all. If the government agency pays for the trial, they should also be prepared for making sure the trial is run correctly and the results are valid. What you are saying is that any run of the mill operation can run a trial. Yes that is true, but the government is not obligated to pay for it.

      Certainly it would be in the best interest of the government to investigate if readily available agents are able to create a more healthy citizenry. As discussed in other posts, it may be that Vitamin D can prevent MS if the proper levels are maintained at a young age. It would benefit mankind if this was known. But I guess this would kill the MS drug gravy train which you are obviously a part of.

By MouseDoctor



Recent Posts

Recent Comments