Pharmaceutical Technologist - September/October 2008 - (Page 11)

Stifled innovation important. When averaged out for the different sectors, it is quite worrying to see how risk averse many pharmaceutical executives are. If these people are leading the industry forward then it looks as if we are faltering. The only silver lining is that if you subdivide out the pharmaceutical sector responses by company you can still find those with the ambition and bravery to try something new. However, for the majority of the pharmaceutical sector respondents, they have become so process-driven that they have lost the ability to take new ideas onboard and pursue them. These types of individuals prefer to repeat previously tried and tested procedures, avoiding new and unfamiliar territory. This should come as little surprise because the average manager in a pharmaceutical company hardly conveys the idea of being dynamic. Many of them do not want to take any risks because they will suffer if mistakes are made (this is why as someone lower down in the hierarchy you will be on the receiving end of delegated work). What these managers are forgetting is that drug development is not always successful and it is impossible to totally escape risk. Some projects will, inevitably, end in failure, regardless of the effort put into the project. Unfortunately, diseases are never going to be defeated by churning out the same range of products. New thinking and approaches are required. Small but innovative This conservative managerial attitude can often be seen in some of the larger drug development organizations. Many are producing new and innovative drugs, but if you look closely you will see that a lot of these do not come from their R&D centres; instead they license-in new drugs from other, usually smaller, companies. These smaller organizations still have people who are ambitious and want to pursue new ideas, but they do not have the financial resources and expertise to take their products all the way through the latter stages of drug development. This gives larger organizations the opportunity to benefit without taking any great risks themselves. The product may still fail, but they can pass at least some of the blame onto external parties who gave them promising information about the product they were persuaded to license-in in the first place. Other companies have taken a different route to mask their conservative attitude. They scout around for innovative smaller companies and then buy them. By acquiring a series of smaller and dynamic companies they believe they will become innovative without changing much of what they do. Unfortunately, once these acquired companies are swallowed up and once senior management has interfered in the way they are run, they become stagnated. It is rare for a large organization to allow the smaller acquired party to operate on a semi-independent basis so that innovation can continue. In most cases, the fear returns and the innovative spirit that enters the organization is crushed to maintain the status quo. There are a host of new technologies available that can be applied to drug development, but the level at which they are adopted by most companies shows that fear continues to hang like a dark cloud. No one is suggesting that pharmaceutical companies abandon tried and tested ideas, but there must be more room to encourage free thinking and use alternative approaches. Can a company not run its usual activities and, at least in part of the organization, explore more novel concepts? Sadly, in practice, most companies are incapable of doing this. There is always someone who has been around for years who cannot help but interfere, thereby stifling any innovative efforts. Unfortunately, diseases are never going to be defeated by churning out the same range of products. New thinking and approaches are required. The author says ● ● ● Many companies fear change and do not take the risks necessary to make new breakthroughs. Drug development is not always successful; it is impossible to totally escape risk. Some larger companies mask their lack of innovation by licensing-in new products from smaller companies. The productivity of the pharmaceutical industry is noticeably declining and people are beginning to talk about it. If you look at the media available to the investment community you may find that the product being touted within your company as the next best thing is not highly valued by them. Similarly, patients are questioning why they are being charged high prices for their medicines and there are a growing number of ‘me-too’ generics appearing on the market. Furthermore, those who fund healthcare are starting to ask why they should allow your company to charge high prices. You and your colleagues may dismiss these opinions and suggest such people do not understand your company’s activities, but it is their money and intervention that dictates the future of your organization. Fear within the pharmaceutical industry is eroding its ability to remain productive and demonstrate its potential. Unfortunately, few people want to admit it and even fewer will do anything about it. Yet there is no escape because there will come a point when your company suffers the consequences of letting fear run the business… PT www.ptemagazine.com 11 http://www.ptemagazine.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Pharmaceutical Technologist - September/October 2008

Pharmaceutical Technologist - September/October 2008 Contents Industry Highlights Morpheus Market Watch Smoke and Mirrors Reducing Data Burdens Keeping it Simple Bringing Pharma Up to Date

Pharmaceutical Technologist - September/October 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.