Darwin and the History of Pharma
Allusions to Darwin can be fun and I suppose corporate archaeologists of the next geological era will happily sift through the promotional detritus of yesteryear (Lucites, mugs, pens etc) as the only
By on Mar 20, 2009Allusions to Darwin can be fun and I suppose corporate archaeologists of the next geological era will happily sift through the promotional detritus of yesteryear (Lucites, mugs, pens etc) as the only remaining fossil evidence of the existence of the pharmaceutical dinosaurs that are already extinct - AH Robins, Fisons, Syntex, Burroughs Wellcome, Marion Labs, Pharmacia, Upjohn, to name a few.
However, those fossilized remains will give few if any clues as to the reasons for the extinction of their originators. For the industry has not been hit with the pharmaceutical equivalent of a large meteor that blotted out the sun for millennia; rather there has been a series of subtle changes in the environment that have been well flagged over the years.
There are two fundamental problems for the industry to deal with; firstly, the lead time for new drug discovery through to commercialization is much longer than the duration of most political or regulatory regimes, with the corollary that industry has to take a thoughtful and strategic view as to the long term health needs of society in order to direct its R&D without concerns that the environment will shift in the interim.
Secondly, the healthcare needs of society do not revolve around the consumption of medicines alone; any consideration of how to help solve a healthcare problem needs to embrace a more holistic approach to prevention and treatment involving all relevant stakeholders - patients, physicians, providers of care or medical interventions and payors.
This is clearly an ultra-simplistic view but defining the problem in such basic terms can be helpful in allowing a view of the wood rather than just the trees. Extinction may be too harsh a word to apply to companies who were the subject of hostile takeovers or reluctant (sometimes willing) mergers since some of these could probably have survived alone.
However, very few companies seem to have acknowledged and planned for the fundamental problems identified above; an intense focus on line extensions, lifestyle diseases and the medicalisation of life's usual travails at the expense of more basic understanding has left companies with portfolios struggling to demonstrate value in a society with little disposable income.
Meanwhile, placing the product at the centre of all sales and marketing efforts rather than the patient has channelled too many financial resources in the wrong direction and resulted in corporate infrastructures that are structurally misaligned with society's needs. It is not too late to change, for those with vision and the financial resources to manage through the transition but as in the past, those who struggle to adapt or don't see the need to adapt may face extinction, through hostile takeovers or reluctant mergers. Happy Birthday Darwin.
Stewart Adkins