The US National Institutes of Health has fielded a lot of skepticism regarding the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Many in the research and funding communities say drug discovery is best left to pharmaceutical and biotech companies and NIH should concentrate on its basic research mandate. As our sister publication GenomeWeb Daily News reported, NCATS recently signed a deal with three pharmaceutical companies to enable researchers to test drugs the companies discarded to see if they can be repurposed. Forbes contributor John LaMattina, former president of Pfizer R&D, is skeptical as to the chances of this program's success. "If pharmaceutical companies already have this covered, why are they agreeing to let the NIH have access to these compounds? Why not?" LaMattina says. "Basically, the NIH is providing free R&D for compounds that are no longer in development, despite the companies' best efforts. They have nothing to lose by letting the NIH sponsor this work." Maybe NIH will get lucky and find something, he adds, but even if that happens, this isn't really the best use of NIH's funding, given tight budgets.
At In the Pipeline, Derek Lowe says it's only a matter of time before everyone knows whether this project was a waste of time and money. However, he adds, even if NCATS succeeds in the drug discovery business, this isn't the most efficient way to do it. "I'd rather start with a compound that I know does what I want it to do, and then try to turn it into a drug (phenotypic screening)," Lowe says. "Starting with a compound that you know is a drug, but doesn't necessarily do what you want it to, is going to be tricky."
Absolutely. Neither the NIH
Absolutely.
Neither the NIH nor the academic community has provided any solid evidence in support of the hypothesis that this kind of effort is logical, desirable, and feasible in these communities. If this plan had been a regular research proposal, it would have been rejected by any objective peer review. Sad.
Drug discovery needs novel,
Drug discovery needs novel, outside the box thinking. Pharmas and biotech industries have their business priorities and hence often potential therapeutics are shelved for one reason or other. There are several examples of new use for a known drug emerging.So taking 20 or more drugs which have already one through tox studies if successful can considerably reduce the time to patient. After all this is what translational science is meant to do. So, it is not unscientific to think that a indication may emerge from already approved drugs. We need more outside the box thinking. Congratulations to Francis Collins for thinking boldly. I can only hope the study section people are bold enough to fund some of the proposals that will emerge from these efforts.
Making money is the driving
Making money is the driving engine of Pharma. Helping patients and improving lives is the driving engine of the NIH. That difference is clearly what NCATS is all about. NCATS represents the very best interest of the American people. Pharma represents the very best interest of Wallstreet. Both these interests overlap a small bit, however, clearly the extremely small investment in NCATS as compared to the titanic investments from Pharma creates worries that their oligopoly stranglehold in setting the economic parameters of our healthcare system will be shown as primarily serving greed over need. Too bad NCATS does not fit into pharma's money driven business model. Pharma best respect that the NIH is the real source of research and creativity in our nation and that tax payer funded research spins off most of pharma's profit centers. Cheers to NCATS! May they open the door to that unprofitable adventure of curing rather than treating diseases.