2 ms·

The idea that all the easy to discover drugs have been found isn't really accurate. What's actually happening is that the FDA has signaled that they are going t

The idea that all the easy to discover drugs have been found isn't really accurate. What's actually happening is that the FDA has signaled that they are going to do slightly more to make sure drugs targeting the general public are reasonably safe and actually plausibly work, and so the drug manufacturers have basically just given up in trying to pass even this minimal bar. This is why they are all targeting rare diseases, not because they are inherently more profitable to treat, but because the FDA bar for safety and efficacy is lower.

Dwolb 12y ago
I disagree. Traditional drug firms have proven they're unable to adequately innovate with internal R&D due to large bureaucratic overhead. Additionally, old blockbuster drug patents are rapidly expiring and these firms have nothing new to offer except for small iterations on the old drug (e.g. a small change in chemistry which offers no to very little additional benefit to the patient while securing a new patent for the firm). In short, competition is increasing and they're unable to make huge leaps forward in technology to stay ahead of the competition. Recognizing these facts, large firms have begun prospecting and betting on start-up companies who focus on rare diseases because this is a space where innovation has very little bureaucratic overhead and there is very little competition. Also, this is also a space in which the market size is small and where barriers to entry are high, reducing the threat of future competition. In fact, if big companies believe they have bought a company with a promising drug, they would prefer higher hurdles for FDA certification to reduce potential competition.
- jonlucc 12y ago
  I think this prospecting will create a problem though. If big pharma increasingly prefer to purchase startup biotech companies that have an asset at whatever phase the pharma is looking for, then the only people developing new drugs will be small startups. It reduces the opportunity for assets built for one target to be worked up in another area (e.g. an autoimmune drug to be tried in models of ALS). It also discourages non-risky scientists, as the jobs will increasingly be in volatile companies that leave you wondering if your company card will work when you check into a hotel at a conference.
  - Dwolb 12y ago
    Agreed. It is a problem but you have to wonder if the market will be self-correcting. If there are no companies left to prospect, what will fill the gap? Maybe the major question is how long will a prospecting strategy last?
refurb 12y ago
I agree entirely. There is no doubt that the FDA has become more and more rigorous over time. And yes, pharma companies have responded by moving to therapeutic areas that are easier to get FDA approval in. Cancer is another great example. It's not the only reason for the shift, but it's a big one[1] [1]http://biotechtranslated.com/2011/07/24/it%E2%80%99s-like-watching-5-year-olds-play-soccer%E2%80%A6/ http://biotechtranslated.com/2011/07/24/it%E2%80%99s-like-wa...

Dwolb 12y ago

I disagree. Traditional drug firms have proven they're unable to adequately innovate with internal R&D due to large bureaucratic overhead. Additionally, old blockbuster drug patents are rapidly expiring and these firms have nothing new to offer except for small iterations on the old drug (e.g. a small change in chemistry which offers no to very little additional benefit to the patient while securing a new patent for the firm). In short, competition is increasing and they're unable to make huge leaps forward in technology to stay ahead of the competition. Recognizing these facts, large firms have begun prospecting and betting on start-up companies who focus on rare diseases because this is a space where innovation has very little bureaucratic overhead and there is very little competition. Also, this is also a space in which the market size is small and where barriers to entry are high, reducing the threat of future competition. In fact, if big companies believe they have bought a company with a promising drug, they would prefer higher hurdles for FDA certification to reduce potential competition.

jonlucc 12y ago
I think this prospecting will create a problem though. If big pharma increasingly prefer to purchase startup biotech companies that have an asset at whatever phase the pharma is looking for, then the only people developing new drugs will be small startups. It reduces the opportunity for assets built for one target to be worked up in another area (e.g. an autoimmune drug to be tried in models of ALS). It also discourages non-risky scientists, as the jobs will increasingly be in volatile companies that leave you wondering if your company card will work when you check into a hotel at a conference.
- Dwolb 12y ago
  Agreed. It is a problem but you have to wonder if the market will be self-correcting. If there are no companies left to prospect, what will fill the gap? Maybe the major question is how long will a prospecting strategy last?

refurb 12y ago

I agree entirely. There is no doubt that the FDA has become more and more rigorous over time. And yes, pharma companies have responded by moving to therapeutic areas that are easier to get FDA approval in. Cancer is another great example. It's not the only reason for the shift, but it's a big one[1] [1]http://biotechtranslated.com/2011/07/24/it%E2%80%99s-like-watching-5-year-olds-play-soccer%E2%80%A6/ http://biotechtranslated.com/2011/07/24/it%E2%80%99s-like-wa...