Business
Figure 2 Traditional model
Innovative alliance models in drug discovery
Most traditional models of drug discovery fall somewhere on an ‘inside-out to outside-in’ spec- trum. At the inside-out end most, if not all, research and development is done internally. Although the entities that employ these models adopt innovations from outside sources. However, these innovations are typically brought into the fold of the company for further development. As illustrated in Figure 2, the traditional drug discov- ery alliance model has been one in which a bio- pharmaceutical or larger biotech company focuses mostly on internal learning and resources, supple- mented by external principal investigators (PIs) and contract research organisations (CROs). The ‘not invented here’ syndrome, which leads an organisation’s culture to reject even the most promising innovations brought in from outside, may prevail in this traditional alliance model. More recently, with an outside-in approach, cen- tral players act as a linchpin or fulcrum at the cen- tre of the effort, connecting innovators to resources and often also developing regulatory and market- ing strategies for bringing successful candidates to the market. In this approach, the biopharmaceuti- cal and larger biotech companies invest in external sourcing activities such as licensing, M&A and R&D collaborations. However, these R&D collab- orations still tend to be limited to specific needs and niche programmes, and are often one-way relationships that generate data to meet a specific need in a biopharmaceutical pipeline programme.
26
While this approach has helped companies popu- late their pipelines, it does not make full use of key opportunities that have arisen in the drug discov- ery and development process.
Much ink has been spilled over which method is best – inside-out, outside-in, or a combination of the two. Passionate arguments have been raised on every side. But in the end the resolution of this debate comes down to a familiar refrain in the management of human institutions: it depends. The carefully calibrated and complex research pro- cess that is essential to one programme may be wasteful and unnecessary in another; it is up to the interested parties to make the judgement. In the last five years, entities in the drug discov- ery and development ecosystem have experimented with, and engaged in, a wide range of models, including but not limited to: open innovation mod- els, pre-competitive approaches, innovation cen- tres, venture co-creation, build-to-buy and fund- related approaches. The central players involved in these models have not changed much over the years. Large companies generally offer capital and research resources to the process, and academics are most often the original innovators, funded by government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health. At the earliest stages, innova- tions from academia may receive further public funding or the support of interested non-profits. These programmes tend to be some of the most efficient, inexpensive and early ideas and experi- ments that generally are not expected to result in new, marketable drugs right away. They remain
Drug Discovery World Winter 2017/18
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
