Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Three Universities Join Researcher to Develop Drugs

Expand Messages
  • Susie
    By ANDREW POLLACK http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/31/health/31DRUG.html? ex=1060401600&en=cad7a0157a48948f&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER Saying that venture
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 1, 2003
      By ANDREW POLLACK
      http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/31/health/31DRUG.html?
      ex=1060401600&en=cad7a0157a48948f&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER

      Saying that venture capitalists and drug companies are becoming
      reluctant to invest in academic medical discoveries, three leading
      California universities are planning to take on more of the task of
      developing drugs.

      The universities — Stanford and the University of California branches
      in San Francisco and San Diego — are joining with SRI International,
      a nonprofit research institute, to form PharmaStart, a consortium
      aimed at moving discoveries made at the schools into clinical trials.

      "It's not enough any longer to cure cancer in the mouse," said Dr.
      Edward W. Holmes, vice chancellor for health sciences at the
      University of California at San Diego, and dean of its medical
      school. "We really do need to move the science into the clinic."

      Typically that has taken place when pharmaceutical companies license
      experimental drugs from universities, or when professors receive
      backing from venture capitalists to start companies. Indeed, the
      three universities spawned much of the biotechnology industries in
      the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego, two of the top
      biotechnology centers in the nation.

      But university officials say that system is breaking down as
      pharmaceutical companies and venture capitalists have become more
      averse to gambling on raw technology and more interested in drugs
      that have demonstrated at least some promise in a small clinical
      trial. That has left more promising ideas unable to pass through what
      some experts have called the "valley of death" between basic
      discovery and commercial development.

      "We in the university are being deprived of a common way to develop
      technologies because we cannot form companies like we used to," said
      Joel B. Kirschbaum, director of the office of technology management
      at the University of California at San Francisco.

      The universities say they do not plan to become drug companies. But
      by doing more of the basic work on drugs themselves — like testing
      them for toxicity in animals — they say they can then entice
      pharmaceutical companies. Moreover, they say, they will get a better
      deal because some of the risk has been taken out.

      Whether the consortium will work is open to question. Under the deal,
      SRI International, which does contract research, will offer the
      universities up to 30 hours of free consulting for each project to
      develop a plan for how to test for toxicity, make the drug for
      clinical trials and other necessary steps. But the universities would
      still have to come up with the money for the tests, manufacturing or
      other tasks.

      SRI hopes that it will be hired to do the actual toxicity testing or
      manufacturing, though the universities are under no obligation. In
      this sense, PharmaStart is really a marketing tactic by SRI, which
      initiated the consortium. The universities are not required to put
      any money into the consortium, only to have representatives on its
      steering committee.

      Officials at the universities and SRI said that among the drugs that
      might benefit are one discovered by a Stanford professor for a rare
      inherited skin disorder, a novel AIDS drug developed at U.C.S.F. and
      a leukemia treatment at the San Diego campus derived from Chinese
      herbal medicine. PharmaStart might eventually be open to other
      universities.

      The effort appears to be part of a trend on the part of universities
      to take drug development more into their own hands, particularly for
      rare diseases that might not present large markets for pharmaceutical
      companies.

      Harvard has set up the Laboratory for Drug Discovery in
      Neurodegeneration, which is screening large numbers of chemicals to
      try to find drugs for diseases like Huntington's and amyotrophic
      lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. Typically,
      such mass screening is done by companies, not academic scientists.

      "We've actually set up a lot like a biotech," said the director of
      the laboratory, Dr. Ross L. Stein, who worked for pharmaceutical and
      biotechnology companies before joining Harvard. He said the lab's
      formation was "based on frustration that a lot of faculty had in not
      being able to get pharma interested in diseases like Huntington's and
      A.L.S." He said drugs for such diseases might not have big sales and
      it is still unclear exactly how to attack such diseases. But if drugs
      are developed, he said, they would be licensed to companies.

      The City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif., has set
      up a factory to make experimental drugs for use in clinical trials in
      compliance with government regulations.

      Beyond academic centers, patient advocacy groups are also taking a
      much more active role in sponsoring or doing research aimed at
      finding cures for specific diseases. And nonprofit drug
      organizations, backed by contributions from philanthropists, have
      arisen to try to develop drugs for diseases in developing countries,
      like malaria and tuberculosis, which tend to be neglected by
      pharmaceutical companies.

      Venture capitalists became more conservative as biotechnology stocks
      slumped in 2001 and 2002. It became difficult for biotechnology
      companies to go public. That meant venture capitalists could not
      easily recover their investments in start-ups and had to put
      additional money into existing companies in their portfolios, leaving
      less for new ones.

      Still, the situation could now be changing. Biotechnology stocks have
      been rising much of this year, and many analysts say they think
      companies will start going public in the fall. Some recent surveys
      have shown that venture investing over all is on the rise and is
      particularly strong in biotechnology.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.