Once upon a time, Pharmas had a very simple relationship with academic research institutions. Big Pharma, with its deep pockets, provided money to university research labs. In return, the companies would get the rights to whatever discoveries were made at those labs.
But that's not the case these days, report Chemical & Engineering News. Pharma and biotech companies now recognize the value of having a closer relationship with the labs that are doing the earliest, ground-breaking research. In these newer pacts, scientists from both sides interact on a regular basis, and oftentimes their lab space is close by. This, supporters say, encourages a free flow of ideas and research.
"It's an evolution away from the traditional funding paradigm toward what I view as a truly collaborative agreement," says Karen Seibert, the vice president of Pfizer's research labs in St. Louis. In a five-year deal worth $25 million, Pfizer and Washington University recently extended their relationship to collaborate more closely on immuno-inflammatory disorders. "There is complete openness--no walls, no barriers. The ideas develop collaboratively, and the focus often changes when our scientists come together to the table." A number of other drug makers have signed similar agreements, including AstraZeneca and Columbia University Medical Center, and Merck and Harvard Medical School.
Critics of these agreements prefer the old method of doing things, in which pharmas were less involved in the day-to-day research. While they acknowledge that the industry is an important funding mechanism, they fear the restrictions academia may face in these alliances. "I am always hesitant to form an alliance like that because there's a difference in goals," notes Hector DeLuca, a biochemistry professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "There are a lot of restrictions with industry that I don't like to see in the academic world."
- see this report for more