Public Release of Alzheimer's Clinical Trial Data By Pharmaceutical Researchers
If you see my post on 6/8/10. You know I saw this coming. It is the way for Pharma to survive!
Friday, June 11, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Will open source drug discovery become a widely used model for commercial drug development?
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/business-operations/project-management/OPS_PRJ/684434-3472062
My take
IP is the best thing for open source drug discovery. The purpose of IP is to prevent “propriety” information. Patent is a complete disclosure your invention.
Using Pfizer as an example. It focused their effort to Cancer, Diabetes and Alzheimer back in 2008 (when they were really in trouble). So all the compounds that showed no effects to these diseases are “intangible asset” that sit on the shelf doing NOTHING. Now, they give it to Wash. University and hoping the university can get some use out of it.
If it works out, say some professor found one of these compounds can treat male pattern boldness (just what come to mind). Now, since Pfizer own the IP on the compound, it can license the compound and get licensing revenue. Now they are converting non-tangible asset into tangible asset (BRILLIANT).
The worst case scenario will be a professor find one of these compounds can cure Alzheimer’s (things that Pfizer is interested in), and the professor will sell the IP. So, at this point, Pfizer will have to bid higher than its competitor (Did I mention that Pfizer are sitting on $17000000000 (NINE ZEROS) CASH from 2009 operation?).
Either way, the downside of open source for big pharma is very small, while the upside is very attractive.
The cost of FDA approval is huge because the drugs keep failing in clinical trial. Make matter worse now is that the pharma refuse to tell people why the drug fail in clinics. So other pharma are failing similar drugs for same reason. Sooner or later, they know that they have to work together to share this info to reduce cost (we see tons of pharma merger last couple years right?). If they are looking for the most efficient model, a co-petition model (collaborate with competitor) will be their best choice, but it will require them to share their proprietary information. And by opening up this info, it can reduce the cost of the drug discovery. Pharma have a choic: DIE TOGETHER or HELP EACH OTHER TO SURVIVE.
So to answer your question, open source will become mainstream in the near future.
To know more, please read: Open Innovation by Chesbrough and The Word is Flat by Friedman
My take
IP is the best thing for open source drug discovery. The purpose of IP is to prevent “propriety” information. Patent is a complete disclosure your invention.
Using Pfizer as an example. It focused their effort to Cancer, Diabetes and Alzheimer back in 2008 (when they were really in trouble). So all the compounds that showed no effects to these diseases are “intangible asset” that sit on the shelf doing NOTHING. Now, they give it to Wash. University and hoping the university can get some use out of it.
If it works out, say some professor found one of these compounds can treat male pattern boldness (just what come to mind). Now, since Pfizer own the IP on the compound, it can license the compound and get licensing revenue. Now they are converting non-tangible asset into tangible asset (BRILLIANT).
The worst case scenario will be a professor find one of these compounds can cure Alzheimer’s (things that Pfizer is interested in), and the professor will sell the IP. So, at this point, Pfizer will have to bid higher than its competitor (Did I mention that Pfizer are sitting on $17000000000 (NINE ZEROS) CASH from 2009 operation?).
Either way, the downside of open source for big pharma is very small, while the upside is very attractive.
The cost of FDA approval is huge because the drugs keep failing in clinical trial. Make matter worse now is that the pharma refuse to tell people why the drug fail in clinics. So other pharma are failing similar drugs for same reason. Sooner or later, they know that they have to work together to share this info to reduce cost (we see tons of pharma merger last couple years right?). If they are looking for the most efficient model, a co-petition model (collaborate with competitor) will be their best choice, but it will require them to share their proprietary information. And by opening up this info, it can reduce the cost of the drug discovery. Pharma have a choic: DIE TOGETHER or HELP EACH OTHER TO SURVIVE.
So to answer your question, open source will become mainstream in the near future.
To know more, please read: Open Innovation by Chesbrough and The Word is Flat by Friedman
Business Model Innovation Matters
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Business Model Innovation Matters
View more presentations from Alexander Osterwalder.
Making the Most of Your Resources
This is coming from Lab Manager, a magazine I published in before. They always give good insight on making a more efficient lab. This time, they are focusing on LIMS.
"It feels like we've been asked to do more with less for a long time. Laboratories are relying on LIMS to improve their efficiency and traceability in their operations and data management. LIMS also are effective at helping laboratories adapt to constant changes, such as technologies, processes, instruments and employees.
June's line-up will help you make the most of your resources, starting with the Microsoft-STARLIMS Roadshow. This is a free Lab Informatics seminar that discusses innovative approaches that laboratories are using to better manage and utilize their information resources. If LIMS is something you're currently considering implementing, or you just want to learn more, make sure you register for the event closest to you.
Another way to make the most of your resources is to be value-conscious about your consumables. For those of you looking for a labeling solution that's resistant to extreme temperatures and all laboratory conditions, CILS computer imprintable labels can be ordered for all your glassware, tubes, caps, etc. They can arrive pre-printed or plain in size, shape & color.
Also, if you're making a new purchase, it makes sense to factor in the value of having a warranty. This way you to don't have to account for potentially expensive repairs. The Heidolph LR20 Industrial Evaporator is backed by a 3-year warranty partnership. These evaporators are compact and equipped with safety features designed for optimal operator awareness.
You can view these items as well as the rest of the technologies available in our June line-up below."
"It feels like we've been asked to do more with less for a long time. Laboratories are relying on LIMS to improve their efficiency and traceability in their operations and data management. LIMS also are effective at helping laboratories adapt to constant changes, such as technologies, processes, instruments and employees.
June's line-up will help you make the most of your resources, starting with the Microsoft-STARLIMS Roadshow. This is a free Lab Informatics seminar that discusses innovative approaches that laboratories are using to better manage and utilize their information resources. If LIMS is something you're currently considering implementing, or you just want to learn more, make sure you register for the event closest to you.
Another way to make the most of your resources is to be value-conscious about your consumables. For those of you looking for a labeling solution that's resistant to extreme temperatures and all laboratory conditions, CILS computer imprintable labels can be ordered for all your glassware, tubes, caps, etc. They can arrive pre-printed or plain in size, shape & color.
Also, if you're making a new purchase, it makes sense to factor in the value of having a warranty. This way you to don't have to account for potentially expensive repairs. The Heidolph LR20 Industrial Evaporator is backed by a 3-year warranty partnership. These evaporators are compact and equipped with safety features designed for optimal operator awareness.
You can view these items as well as the rest of the technologies available in our June line-up below."
Monday, June 7, 2010
Go Time for Biotech ETFs?
I personally will wait for another week to see how it cooked up today.
By Tom Lydon.
The biotechnology sector kicks off its version of a "Super Bowl" today. While it doesn’t involve cocktail weiners, gallons of beer or the wave, it’s a major event that could have an impact on biotech exchange traded funds.
Today kicks off the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), which will run through June 8. This is the most important meeting for the biotech sector, attended not just by doctors and leaders in the biotech industry, but by biotech investors, as well.
Marc Lichtenfeld for Investment U reports that this is the place where companies with cancer drugs in development present key clinical trial data.
Historically, many biotech stocks run higher in anticipation of good news at the conference, and this year has been no exception.
Lichtenfeld believes that this decade will be the decade of biotech. Companies are researching drugs to treat a variety of diseases and conditions, including cancer, diabetes, hepatitis and multiple sclerosis.
For investors, biotech is a risky sector. One drug approval or denial can make or break a company’s fortunes. This is why biotech ETFs are a less risky way to play the sector, giving you exposure to a variety of companies and minimizing the negative impact of an FDA denial.
SPDR S&P Bioetch (XBI)
iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology (IBB)
First Trust Amex Biotechnology Fund (FBT)
By Tom Lydon.
The biotechnology sector kicks off its version of a "Super Bowl" today. While it doesn’t involve cocktail weiners, gallons of beer or the wave, it’s a major event that could have an impact on biotech exchange traded funds.
Today kicks off the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), which will run through June 8. This is the most important meeting for the biotech sector, attended not just by doctors and leaders in the biotech industry, but by biotech investors, as well.
Marc Lichtenfeld for Investment U reports that this is the place where companies with cancer drugs in development present key clinical trial data.
Historically, many biotech stocks run higher in anticipation of good news at the conference, and this year has been no exception.
Lichtenfeld believes that this decade will be the decade of biotech. Companies are researching drugs to treat a variety of diseases and conditions, including cancer, diabetes, hepatitis and multiple sclerosis.
For investors, biotech is a risky sector. One drug approval or denial can make or break a company’s fortunes. This is why biotech ETFs are a less risky way to play the sector, giving you exposure to a variety of companies and minimizing the negative impact of an FDA denial.
SPDR S&P Bioetch (XBI)
iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology (IBB)
First Trust Amex Biotechnology Fund (FBT)
Friday, June 4, 2010
4 Mistakes that Discourage Top Performers
I sometime feel that I am disrespect my superior. It could be due to No. 4 mistake. But in science, I think it is much better to be conforntational and do what is being told. Innovation cannot survive in do what is told organization!
4 Mistakes that Discourage Top Performers
Most of the top performers I worked with liked recognition, were very cognizant of the compensation they received for their extra contributions, and made it clear they were unimpressed by fellow employees or managers who were less driven or sharp.
To retain top performers, you not only have to know how to keep them motivated by identifying new responsibilities, objectives, and challenges (or in some cases being able to keep up with their innovation), you have to know how to avoid demotivating them as well.
In the article, What Alienates Top Performers, by Steven DeMaio, a top performer is identified as someone having the talent to do the manager’s job and the “keen ability” to assess the manager’s choices. Even if the manager does a great job handling the most important issues, there are small things that top performers find frustrating. Below is a list of four mistakes managers make that discourage top performers.
1. Dropped balls — Top performers do not appreciate when they have to point out dropped balls from their managers and are likely to be disappointed in the manager whose oversight made them become involved.
2. Ignoring Tough Questions — When a manager ignores, avoids, or deflects important issues, top performers are unlikely to do the same. Unresolved important issues bother them. This reluctance to address the issue can be viewed as a reflection of the manager’s ability to “assess matters on the merits.”
3. Lopsided Reliance on Data Over Judgment — When a manager uses data as a crutch or lack of data as an excuse for inaction, a top performer questions the manager’s capacity for good judgment.
4. Unease with Leadership Skills in the Ranks — Good managers appreciate talent and the opportunity to be able to mold people who remind them of themselves. While most managers are like this, there are some that value the “steady pluggers” over those with the highest potential (maybe view top performers as too demanding of their time, confrontational, less predictable, etc.). Top performers recognize this type of “complacency” in their manager and don’t respect it.
4 Mistakes that Discourage Top Performers
Most of the top performers I worked with liked recognition, were very cognizant of the compensation they received for their extra contributions, and made it clear they were unimpressed by fellow employees or managers who were less driven or sharp.
To retain top performers, you not only have to know how to keep them motivated by identifying new responsibilities, objectives, and challenges (or in some cases being able to keep up with their innovation), you have to know how to avoid demotivating them as well.
In the article, What Alienates Top Performers, by Steven DeMaio, a top performer is identified as someone having the talent to do the manager’s job and the “keen ability” to assess the manager’s choices. Even if the manager does a great job handling the most important issues, there are small things that top performers find frustrating. Below is a list of four mistakes managers make that discourage top performers.
1. Dropped balls — Top performers do not appreciate when they have to point out dropped balls from their managers and are likely to be disappointed in the manager whose oversight made them become involved.
2. Ignoring Tough Questions — When a manager ignores, avoids, or deflects important issues, top performers are unlikely to do the same. Unresolved important issues bother them. This reluctance to address the issue can be viewed as a reflection of the manager’s ability to “assess matters on the merits.”
3. Lopsided Reliance on Data Over Judgment — When a manager uses data as a crutch or lack of data as an excuse for inaction, a top performer questions the manager’s capacity for good judgment.
4. Unease with Leadership Skills in the Ranks — Good managers appreciate talent and the opportunity to be able to mold people who remind them of themselves. While most managers are like this, there are some that value the “steady pluggers” over those with the highest potential (maybe view top performers as too demanding of their time, confrontational, less predictable, etc.). Top performers recognize this type of “complacency” in their manager and don’t respect it.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
When and how will the pharma industry realise the potential of social media?
This is a question I got from Linkedin. It was said that Pharma are in love with pushing pen and notepad. Working with some of the scientist, I must say it is somewhat true... Scientists are sometime cannot defocus from science and look at the technology around us.
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/technology/biotech/TCH_BIO/679818-49766121
Here is the best answer:
Here are some quick thoughts:
It seems like Twitter would have some opportunities. Anytime someone mentioned (insert illness) you could reply "ask your doc about (insert pill)". That takes a huge amount of time, though - and you can't really automate it.
Facebook Ads are great for getting eyeballs, and with certain meds you can probably target very well.
A corporate blog may improve the all-important "trust factor". As long as it is relevant, helpful, and has a real PR pro behind it.
I've seen a number of Dr's on LinkedIn - this may be a great channel to reach out through.
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/technology/biotech/TCH_BIO/679818-49766121
Here is the best answer:
Here are some quick thoughts:
It seems like Twitter would have some opportunities. Anytime someone mentioned (insert illness) you could reply "ask your doc about (insert pill)". That takes a huge amount of time, though - and you can't really automate it.
Facebook Ads are great for getting eyeballs, and with certain meds you can probably target very well.
A corporate blog may improve the all-important "trust factor". As long as it is relevant, helpful, and has a real PR pro behind it.
I've seen a number of Dr's on LinkedIn - this may be a great channel to reach out through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)