Contemporary Accounts in Drug Discovery and Development. Группа авторов

Читать онлайн.
Название Contemporary Accounts in Drug Discovery and Development
Автор произведения Группа авторов
Жанр Медицина
Серия
Издательство Медицина
Год выпуска 0
isbn 9781119627814



Скачать книгу

microbiome and its connection to cardiovascular, immunologic, and neurologic “health” will likely expand target space and point to new approaches for therapeutic intervention. This is tied to the re‐emergence of phenotypic drug discovery in general and all of this could be accelerated via the application of present‐day genomics tools coupled with the state‐of‐the‐art informatics capabilities.

      In the era when we see public figures staking claim to “alternative facts” and regularly hear claims that inconvenient or uncomfortable (but objectively verifiable) information is “fake news”, broad societal pressures and the “human element” may pose the biggest threat to continued new discoveries in drug research. In his ground‐breaking 2005 book The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty‐first Century, Thomas Friedman lays out how the digitization of information and the broad reach of the internet has led to the rapid democratization of capabilities and knowledge [46]. Anyone connected to or embedded in drug research now regularly grapples with the resulting positive and negative impacts of Friedman's flat world. While we can marvel at the power and convenience of conducting broad literature searches in seconds by simply clicking a mouse, this comes at a cost to researchers of having to discern increasingly faint signals in an exponentially expanding sea of noise. As we enhance our ability to leverage artificial intelligence [47] and exploit big data we may be able to eventually corral large quantities of disparate sets of information that is relevant to drug discovery and development, but pitfalls that can be traced to the humans behind the computers have already come to the fore [48].

      I also believe that there are significant risks to future innovations posed by the fracturing of the complex research environments into discrete units and continued efforts to optimize their individual parts. This has manifested itself in a pharmaceutical “gig economy” that can reinforce a short‐term, transactional mindset and poses significant challenges to individuals who may be more accustomed to or who would thrive in more traditional research environments [49]. In order to ensure we are on the path to discovering future medicines, we must realize that the rigorous application of the scientific method coupled with savvy decision‐making is critical. The disciplined fostering of individual and group behaviors that promote innovation should be a priority. Making sure that we tolerate failure, allow for experimentation, ensure psychological safety, promote collaboration and demand that we have leaders who support all of this is crucial to have if we seek to avoid having promising research undercut by non‐productive human intervention [50].

      1 1 World Health Organization (2018). The top ten causes of death. https://www.who.int/news‐room/fact‐sheets/detail/the‐top‐10‐causes‐of‐death (accessed 29 September 2021).

      2 2 Bloom, D.E. and Cadarette, D. (2019). Infectious disease threats in the twenty‐first century: strengthening the global response. Front. Immunol. 10: 1–12.

      3 3 Trypsteen, W., Van Cleemput, J., van Snippenberg, J. et al. (2020). On the whereabouts of SARS‐CoV‐2 in the human body: a systematic review. PLoS Pathog.: 1–26.

      4 4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services(2017). United States life tables, 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_07‐508.pdf (accessed 29 September 2021).

      5 5 Vogenberg, F.R. (2019). U.S. Healthcare trends and contradictions in 2019. Am. Health Drug Benefits 12 (1): 40–47.

      6 6 Hay, M., Thomas, D.W., Craighead, J.L. et al. (2014). Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat. Biotechnol. 32 (1): 40–51.

      7 7 Smietana, K., Siatkowski, M., and Mølle, M. (2016). Trends in clinical success rates. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 15: 379–380.

      8 8 Thomas, D.W., Burns, J., Audette, J. et al. (2017). Clinical development success rates 2006–2015. https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/legacy/bioorg/docs/Clinical%20Development%20Success%20Rates%202006‐2015%20‐%20BIO,%20Biomedtracker,%20Amplion%202016.pdf (accessed 29 September 2021).

      9 9 Wong, C.H., Siah, W.W., and Lo, A.W. (2019). Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters. Biostatistics 20 (2): 273–286.

      10 10 Bansal, R., De Backer, R., and Ranade, V. (2018). What's behind the pharmaceutical sector's M&A push. https://www.mckinsey.com/business‐functions/strategy‐and‐corporate‐finance/our‐insights/whats‐behind‐the‐pharmaceutical‐sectors‐m‐and‐a‐push# (accessed 29 September 2021).

      11 11 Patterson,