- Email: [email protected]
The medical-industrial compex
Human PATHOLOGY VOLUME t5
August t984
NUMBER 8
Editorial
The Medical-lndustrial Complex Less than five years ago, in an excellent paper, Undenfriend discussed the problems associated with improving the process of the acquisition and eventual application of new knowledge. He argued that the scientific base of clinical research needs a more meaningful and realistic collaboration between the academic community, pharmaceutical industry, and government. U n d e n f r i e n d stated that the translation process, from basic observations to application in humans, could be accelerated. To accomplish this acceleration, more academic scientists must be made conscious of their role and stimulated to become active jn the transfer system. In this paper Undenfriend stated, "Scientists delude themselves if they think that the public supports basic biomedical research only for the advancement of science. Obviously the snpport does accomplish that. But implicit in granting research support is the expectation that it will better life and improve heahh. The entire scientific community must address itself to what is implied by governmental support o f research." I n d u s t r y is a major c o m p o n e n t o f the biomedical effort in the United States. Given the vital role of industry in the heahh care field, it is amazing that our scientific leaders and Congress believe that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and not industry, a r e instrumental in the translation o f new data into practice. It is tiffs perception in Washington that leads Congress to demand more applied efforts from the NIH, effectively reducing funds for basic research. Many of us are to blaine for this attitude and philosophy. In the current economic, social, and political scene in America, medicine m u s t search for new alternatives to fillfill its mission to the public. If ever there were a need for honesty, it is now. Biomedical scientists can no longer stand on the sidelines as passive observers, neutral to the plight of the industries that provide our new drugs, new instruments, and new laboratory tests. Let's face it, in our society the heahh science industry can only exist if it is profit-motivated. The public and our political-leaders need to be convinced. If these industries do not prosper, we fool ourseh'es if we believe that basic research as it exists now will not stiffer equally.
There is an urgent need to review our patent policies, the requirements of regulatory agencies, and the f i m d i n g o f basic research, among others. T h e time has come to recognize openly the interdependence of academia and industry. T h e r e are man), ways in which our academic medical research establishment and the health-oriented industries can work together so as to benefit science and the public. In recent years we have witnessed the explosive growth of bioteclmology companies, as the race to recombinant DNA products moves into high gear. Many excellent biologists are involved, either as entrepreneurs in free-standing ventures or as part of proftmaking university businesses. I n d u s t r y now has willing academic p a r t n e r s accepting f u n d s to fill needy coffers. In this rush to reap financial profits, scientists and nniversities need to move with caution lest they set precedents that they will regret. Perhaps we require the'establishment of basic principles on which we can all agree. Such principles might involve 1) assuring a high level of financial support for basic research, with the research to be reviewed within a peer evaluation system; 2) providing encouragement and support for scientist-to-scientist collaboration in transferring new findings from the laboratory to industry; 3) modifying restrictive regulations tbat delay and increase the cost of healtb care; and 4) providing incentives to industry engaged in basic research to invest further in creative, innovative work. It is too early to predict the future of medical research and health care. In light of current trends, they certainly will never look the same. The physician as entrepreneur is not new, but the pressure to become one is new. As this pressure increases, a variety of options becomes available. Working directly with industry can be an exciting experience for pathologists. Many pathologists are actively involved in the research and development of new tests, reagents, instruinents, computer progr~ams, and laboratory design with profit-making companies. No doubt this medical-industrial interaction will continue to grow, changing the nature and character of heahh care in America.--B.M. IV. 699
August t984
NUMBER 8
Editorial
The Medical-lndustrial Complex Less than five years ago, in an excellent paper, Undenfriend discussed the problems associated with improving the process of the acquisition and eventual application of new knowledge. He argued that the scientific base of clinical research needs a more meaningful and realistic collaboration between the academic community, pharmaceutical industry, and government. U n d e n f r i e n d stated that the translation process, from basic observations to application in humans, could be accelerated. To accomplish this acceleration, more academic scientists must be made conscious of their role and stimulated to become active jn the transfer system. In this paper Undenfriend stated, "Scientists delude themselves if they think that the public supports basic biomedical research only for the advancement of science. Obviously the snpport does accomplish that. But implicit in granting research support is the expectation that it will better life and improve heahh. The entire scientific community must address itself to what is implied by governmental support o f research." I n d u s t r y is a major c o m p o n e n t o f the biomedical effort in the United States. Given the vital role of industry in the heahh care field, it is amazing that our scientific leaders and Congress believe that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and not industry, a r e instrumental in the translation o f new data into practice. It is tiffs perception in Washington that leads Congress to demand more applied efforts from the NIH, effectively reducing funds for basic research. Many of us are to blaine for this attitude and philosophy. In the current economic, social, and political scene in America, medicine m u s t search for new alternatives to fillfill its mission to the public. If ever there were a need for honesty, it is now. Biomedical scientists can no longer stand on the sidelines as passive observers, neutral to the plight of the industries that provide our new drugs, new instruments, and new laboratory tests. Let's face it, in our society the heahh science industry can only exist if it is profit-motivated. The public and our political-leaders need to be convinced. If these industries do not prosper, we fool ourseh'es if we believe that basic research as it exists now will not stiffer equally.
There is an urgent need to review our patent policies, the requirements of regulatory agencies, and the f i m d i n g o f basic research, among others. T h e time has come to recognize openly the interdependence of academia and industry. T h e r e are man), ways in which our academic medical research establishment and the health-oriented industries can work together so as to benefit science and the public. In recent years we have witnessed the explosive growth of bioteclmology companies, as the race to recombinant DNA products moves into high gear. Many excellent biologists are involved, either as entrepreneurs in free-standing ventures or as part of proftmaking university businesses. I n d u s t r y now has willing academic p a r t n e r s accepting f u n d s to fill needy coffers. In this rush to reap financial profits, scientists and nniversities need to move with caution lest they set precedents that they will regret. Perhaps we require the'establishment of basic principles on which we can all agree. Such principles might involve 1) assuring a high level of financial support for basic research, with the research to be reviewed within a peer evaluation system; 2) providing encouragement and support for scientist-to-scientist collaboration in transferring new findings from the laboratory to industry; 3) modifying restrictive regulations tbat delay and increase the cost of healtb care; and 4) providing incentives to industry engaged in basic research to invest further in creative, innovative work. It is too early to predict the future of medical research and health care. In light of current trends, they certainly will never look the same. The physician as entrepreneur is not new, but the pressure to become one is new. As this pressure increases, a variety of options becomes available. Working directly with industry can be an exciting experience for pathologists. Many pathologists are actively involved in the research and development of new tests, reagents, instruinents, computer progr~ams, and laboratory design with profit-making companies. No doubt this medical-industrial interaction will continue to grow, changing the nature and character of heahh care in America.--B.M. IV. 699