3 ms·
A bit unrelated / meta question. Since it's developed in UCLA - do they have resources to do the next phases of trials (humans, etc)? I wonder if in such cases
by shcheklein 2y ago
A bit unrelated / meta question.
Since it's developed in UCLA - do they have resources to do the next phases of trials (humans, etc)? I wonder if in such cases pharma (those who obviously have enough money) care about these molecules at all? Since they probably can't put a patent on it and heavily monetize it later. Are there examples of drugs that were developed like this successfully?
- fasa99 2y agoIt's very much patentable and thus represents an IP asset that can be traded, contracted, exchanged, etc, similar to a "technology invention". UCLA likely owns it or a part of it, so can trade it freely. This is quite very very early for a drug, so there's huge risk it will fail in human trails, so that high risk lowers the value significantly versus a phase III passed drug. There's a kazillion drugs like this, XYZ-123 type format, most of which failed or never reached Phase I, Phase II, phase III, phase IV, or phase kappa trials
- vineyardmike 2y agoMost labs in universities have wildly different finances. Each lab basically has to compete for funds independently of their parent university - few are funded by the school. It’s very unlikely that a lab equipped to study mice is also equipped for human studies. Those require a lot more money and different expertise and in addition to different equipment and facilities.