News Updates

At this time of year when Nobel prizes are awarded, I am reminded of the movie Glory Enough for All, based on the book The Discovery of Insulin by Michael Bliss. The book and movie detail the discovery of insulin, the lives of Banting and Best, as well as others at the University of Toronto who were involved in that discovery, and who ultimately won (and did not win) the Nobel Prize. The movie was produced by a close friend in Toronto at the time that I was at Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto; and thus the setting, the story, and its impact were very close to me and my experiences in academic medicine. The history of science has always been a complicated one — who has the idea, who does the work, who gets the credit.

In this issue of TIRS, we have an article by Chakravarthy et. al. that examines the relative contributions of the public and private sectors in the development of transformational medical products over the past few years. Having spent my career in academic medicine, the pharmaceutical industry, and FDA, I was not surprised by their conclusions. It’s complicated. For different products, there were differences in the relative contributions of pharmaceutical companies and academia, but the bottom line was that there was more than enough "credit" attributable to both sectors. It is clear that breakthrough discoveries, establishment of new "druggable targets," design and implementation of preclinical and clinical studies, and regulation of products is a "team sport." It is hard to conceive of highly impactful medicines that did not require cross-disciplinary and cross-sector involvement.

Of late, there have been myriad critiques of the pharmaceutical industry, of academia, and of the health care system. Well-based scientific skepticism (and not cynicism), transparency, data access, patient involvement in all phases of drug development, and a free, open exchange of ideas are vital to the integrity of the processes that provide patients with needed treatments. At the same time, it is apparent the collaboration across sectors is equally vital. If we are to maintain and expand the pace of discovery of the biologic basis of disease and convert that understanding into new approaches to prevent disease and products to treat disease, we need vibrant science in academia and in industry. In both sectors, there is a need for introspection, to be self-critical in how they are organized and how they function, and to keep the focus on the needs of patients first and foremost. And there is little question but that the positive accomplishments of science need to be rewarded by the public. At a time of growing cynicism, the scientific "establishment" needs to be deserving of the support, and to effectively communicate the impact of science on our very existence.

Communication is ultimately what a journal is about. How do we best "develop and disseminate" new knowledge, how do we create an atmosphere to engage in discussion? How do we help establish the highest scientific and ethical standards in all we do? We are fortunate at TIRS to be able to bring together papers by authors from academia, industry, and the regulatory community, and to do this on a global basis. Many papers are coauthored by colleagues from the different sectors. And we are fortunate to be part of DIA, an organization focused on being a neutral ground for cross-sector interactions. Since it is apparent that future progress in therapeutics will depend on such interactions, and that we need to do better in how we communicate and work together, the roles of TIRS and DIA are all the more important.