More

New Gov't Center To Focus On 'Risky, Early-Stage' Drug Research

Nih Drug Development

02/23/11 06:14 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — The nation's premier research agency plans to open a new center this fall to spur creation of medications because of concern that exciting discoveries aren't being turned into treatments fast enough.

The plan is on track despite the increasingly likely prospect of budget cuts for the venerable National Institutes of Health, agency chief Dr. Francis Collins said Wednesday.

The idea: Do more of the risky early-stage research into promising compounds that drug companies are increasingly reluctant to invest in. It's a period called "the valley of death" because so many of those early experiments fail.

"The valley of death needs to become a valley that leads to life," Collins told reporters. "The time is right even in a difficult budget environment, maybe especially in a difficult budget environment."

That kind of drug-related research isn't new for the NIH. The cancer drug taxol and AIDS drug AZT, for example, originated from NIH work, Collins noted, and agency researchers have 550 projects under way devoted to various medications, vaccines or medical devices. He cited recent research that found 20 percent of innovative new medications that hit the market in recent years originated from NIH-funded research – as the drug industry's own research productivity has declined.

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences would bring much of NIH's current drug development research – about $700 million worth, from a $30 billion budget – under one roof so scientists could better collaborate, Collins said. It also will explore new techniques to predict, for instance, which experimental medications will be safe enough to test in people faster than is done today.

"This is not an effort to turn NIH into a drug-development company," Collins stressed. "The idea is to ... move projects just far enough along for them to be attractive to commercial investment."

The plan has drawn some objections by researchers and others concerned about the dismantling of another NIH center at the same time, projects that Collins said will be taken over by other parts of the agency.

But some high-profile patient advocacy groups are praising the change. Fewer than 200 of 7,000 rare diseases have an available therapy, said James O'Leary of the Genetic Alliance.

"That's just too slow," he said. "This translational medicine focus is critical to the mission of NIH."

The Bethesda, Md.-based NIH plans to open the center Oct. 1.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTH

Filed by Nicholas Miriello  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 23
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
06:16 AM on 02/26/2011
since congress is totally averse to raising taxes - and the GOP is adverse to funding science - the way this is getting funded is by diverting money from other NIH programs - possibly including some of the grant money that now goes to academic research at universities across the country - a zero sum game

and for what? to do the basic science then sell off the results to private industry to make a pretty penny in a country that isn't serious about getting health care costs under control?

if they are going to start this program, then let the gov't keep the technology - the patents - and put it on the market for a reasonable price

and my CV is ready for the NIH to take a look at whenever they start hiring
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
avg american
It's about jobs, jobs, jobs...
12:40 PM on 02/25/2011
How about we stop reinventing the wheel and open the borders to free flow of information and collaborative efforts.

Spain is doing some amazing things with stem cell research.

Are the American scientists up to speed on global research? If we as a country are putting emphasis on money-generating maintenance medication, how are we going to produce cures?
05:08 PM on 02/25/2011
The MLPCN, the NIH process I mentioned below has complete open sharing of information. The data is released to the public. For the last project I ran, the initial data was released within 3 weeks via a web-based mechanism known as Pubchem. The US is at the forefront of biological research. Why do you think so many foreign nationals come to the US for training? Cures are going to take a huge effort that involves identifying disease mechanisms, figuring out ways of modifying defects and lastly, how to get a therapeutic to its target in a human being. I should emphasize that a therapeutic could be any substance or method, not just a drug.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
avg american
It's about jobs, jobs, jobs...
06:13 PM on 02/25/2011
f&f'ed... great posts.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Trapster
Veni, vidi, vomui
07:17 AM on 03/01/2011
There is a lot of (tons of) research for medicines--none for cures. Cures end the revenue stream. Make up a disease like, " female sexual dysfunction disorder", get it passed as a real disease and then make a medicine to "treat" it. It's the money not the disease that works in our desperately silly repressed society.
Money for cures not for treatments!
photo
stape45
Spin this!
04:58 PM on 02/24/2011
In the future, no more tax cuts in advance. Give tax cuts AFTER businesses do their hiring, based on relevant criteria. It’s totally senseless to demand that Government refuse payment, then play the “broke” card.
03:58 PM on 02/24/2011
thanks in part to forced bushdrugcare on our seniors big pharma is making money hand over fist like never before....why aren't they spending some more of this booty on drug design and treatment ?
06:21 AM on 02/26/2011
spend money on high risk basic science which takes decades to do and turn into a commercialized product?
pharma won't do it b/c sending resources down that route - while worth it long term - causes net profit to be lower in the short term, lower dividends are paid, investors (stockholders) are disappointed, CEOs get smaller bonuses and everybody acts like spending that money was a silly idea - stock prices fall, credit ratings fall, cost of financing goes up...

the myopia of industry is truly something to behold
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
iblogleft
Certifiable
03:54 PM on 02/24/2011
Capitalism does not work if you are looking for cures. There is no money in cures. We can however, draw out your illness forever, as long as you keep taking these pills...
03:51 PM on 02/24/2011
all we need is more slack science to give us "wonder drugs" that just kill people outright.....or cripple them with their side effects....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:01 PM on 02/24/2011
Molecule screens are not the rate limiting step in drug development, nor the most expensive. If the government wants to get more drugs to market for less money they need to take a hard look at the certification process.
02:14 PM on 02/24/2011
Perhaps they could tax marijuana and apply some of that jackpot to big pharma, that would really put them in a pickle. do they accept the money from an industry they have spent so much to keep illegal.
Just sayin...
01:52 PM on 02/24/2011
If one considers the number of drugs and therapies that were based upon NIH-sponsored research, then you would have many more success stories. So much of what is pursued in pharma is based upon NIH sponsored research. Consider how many small biotech companies are started by academic researchers. This new venture would be different because of the inclusion of high risk diseases where there is less profit. I should know I worked in pharma for years and now work with academic researchers to find small, drug-like molecules to study various biological mechanisms. It is part of an NIH-sponsored program called the Molecular Libraries Probes Productions Network (MLPCN). The MLPCN is currently active and is focused on identifying small molecules that can be used in the lab to study biological aspects of disease. Academia is full of eager, intelligent scientists who can only enrich future drug development. Is it so hard to think about a time when profits from clinical medicines could be funneled back into additional research and not the pockets of corporations?
02:16 PM on 02/24/2011
I like the way you are going with your argument, Perhaps the government funded studies could somehow sell their research and actually cover some of the expense.
02:24 PM on 02/24/2011
Somehow your thought about real monetary value never seems to occur to people when it comes to rationalizing the taking of the taxpayers' money. Real value real money.
photo
Nutcase
Of, By and For - Elsewhere known as Psycho MD
02:53 PM on 02/24/2011
NIH discovered one of the more effective cancer drugs: Taxol. They gave it to Florida State to develop a synthetic, since Yew trees are relatively few. FSU then gave it to a drug manufacturer for a royalty. They failed to pay for several years. They finally made a pennies-on-the-dollar payment, then quit paying. But at least when the NIH does the research it frees the drug companies to give us Viagra and something for our restless legs. Prescription drugs, taken as prescribed, are the 4th leading cause of death in the US.
theaustralian
to the far left of right wing democrats
01:47 PM on 02/24/2011
This is perhaps the only obama policy i like
01:29 PM on 02/24/2011
The taxpayers have always thought that their dollars going to the NIH for more than fifty years were to produce pharmaceuticals and vaccines. If the tax supported NIH could have produced drugs the taxpayers would not be buying tremendously expensive drugs.

But because for years the NIH and NCI (headquarters for the war on cancer) went down a path of producing research papers, not life saving discoveries, you now have Dr. Francis Collins saying he can do differently and produce pharmaceuticals. That is statement is probably true, but the efficiency will be of the efficiency of the past.

It is difficult to imagine holding up AZT as drug of value. Arguably, treatment with AZT killed 10s of thousands of patients due to toxicity issues; AZT destroys normal circulatory cell production (both red and white cells suffer). The AZT toxicity issues are worse than the virus during the early stages of infection. Two years may well be a maximum life span on AZT due to toxicity, death by drug. AZT is not used current therapies. AZT was a arguably a major disaster.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoahVail
...a curmudgeon from So. Arizona
01:39 PM on 02/24/2011
ding, ding, ding, ding, ding....

Give this man a Kewpie Doll!!  You are right on the money, brother (sister?).  The scientists supported by NIH funding are way more interested in publications than new drugs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:58 PM on 02/24/2011
Do you think "life saving discoveries" just fall out of thin air? If not, where do you think they come from?