At a big pharma conference yesterday, Merck & Co.'s chief strategy officer, Merv Turner, laid the blame for industry woes squarely at the feet of researchers. The basic problem is the low success rate in identifying new drugs: "Seventy-five cents of every dollar we spend on R&D goes to fund failure," he told an audience of execs and dealmakers at Windhover's Pharmaceutical Strategic Outlook meeting in New York City. Creativity and risk-taking remain essential, Turner said, but the scientific fruit must "come at a lower cost," though he didn't explain exactly how greater efficiency might be achieved.
But he allowed that Merck is going through a "painful" restructuring of its research divisions. The company agreed to take over Schering-Plough last month; this may add duplicative staff.
A prime target for trimming is late-stage drug development, where the most research money is spent and lost. But a slim-down in more basic discovery isn't out of the question. "Nothing's safe from cuts" these days, Turner told ScienceInsider. Merck, like other drugmakers, is turning to smaller companies for help, licensing in more drugs than ever. But Turner said "a strong internal research function" is still essential.
—Scott Hensley
It appears that Mr. Hensley misinterpreted Turner's comments. It defies logic that the Cheif Strategy Officer of a company employing thousands of research scientists would blame them for the low success rate of drug development. These are the same researchers that have allowed Merck to generate $24 billion in revenue in 2008 and acquire Schering-Plough for $41 billion.
Drug development research, and scientific research in general, have an inherently low success rate that is fairly constant. This low success rate is attributable, at least in part, to biological complexity, a limited understanding of certain disease processes and the difficulties in predicting in vivo responses to experimental drug therapies. The issue is not the failure rate per se but to have efficient monitoring and communication systems in place to recognize failures and to end projects quickly. Multi-layered, large research groups tend to lack such efficiencies in place as well as the ability to execute them. Small biotechs need to operate in a focused, efficient and innovative manner to ensure their growth and survival. Compared to biotechs, large pharma R&D groups tend to be risk averse, slower to identify areas requiring improvement and to strategically implement the changes necessary to improve the drug discovery process. This is why big pharma is turning to biotechs to bolster their pipelines.
Um - Scott... Presumably as a science journalist you are aware of the well-publicized work of the Tufts Center for Drug Discovery on the cost to bring a new drug to market, and the proportion of that cost that is attributable to the direct expense of the winning molecule vs all the things that did not pan out. There is no mystery or news here - most things fail; the cost of those failures is recovered by the sale of those products that make it to market. Your article implies Turner is blaming "other" scientists, but I interpret it as saying he himself and other industry (biotech and pharma) and academic scientists (I am one myself) have to innovate ourselves out of this dilemma. The fact that we dont have unlimited funds to do it is no secret either.
Scientists make drugs. We therfore deserve whatever credit or blame is due depending on how well we perform in bringing out medicines that make a real impact on people's lives.
How about the "managerial talent" of Mr. Turner et al. "coming at lower cost"? Once the real healthcare reform is underway with federally set drug prices, sure they will be the next to bail out. At that time, the govt. should impose pay caps on them, too.
What gets me is that the blogger is interpreting what Turner said in such a negative manner. What Turner was describing was that 75 percent of R&D spending is spent on failure, and that the development of methods to reduce that percentage is what will fuel drug discovery in the near term. The blogger (for Science of all places) chose to interpret ... Read Moreit negatively instead of suggesting that scientists have an opportunity to improve drug discovery, because the only way to have a quantum leap style cut in spending is with better science, not better cost cutting MBA-style management
Blame the researchers?
Perhaps Mr. Turner should be asking why Merck severely rationed research access to critical IT like CAS SciFinder and Beilstein Crossfire before its big fall.