|
|
|
|
|
|
|
one of the few factors that can counter the profit-limiting environment imposed by pharmacoeconomics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The pharmaceutical industry has always been high risk for new product development. The increased emphasis on novel drugs will make the risk even higher, and many companies may languish [8]. There is an increasingly crowded field of competitors, all seeking a unique approach to therapy. Clearly, only a few of them will be able to move fast enough to launch a novel drug; others introducing their new products later in the same class suddenly become the me-too drugs. Finding novel approaches that are commercially viable therefore will become quite challenging and highly competitive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal and professional integrity in the pharmaceutical industry is high. It is driven not only by strict regulatory requirements that are designed to protect the consumer, but also by the ethics of science and medicine, which have never tolerated willful deception or distortion of scientific findings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, integrity may be compromised when the R & D environment constrains telling it right or hearing it right. The R & D staff must be open and honest with their management in order for projects to be evaluated fairly and acted upon appropriately. This will not happen if workers feel compelled to suppress bad news or delay actions while trying to find some redeeming value in the project [24]. This problem has been compounded by globalized drug development where cultural differences may impede communications and mislead management decision making. The reticence to admit failure and the desire to save face are very real forces that may not be fully appreciated but that can severely impact progress in development. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing it right is equally important. Bright new ideas often struggle for lack of full management commitment. There is a tendency for the management of the industry leader to stick to an existing technology in which they lead and have invested heavily, rather than embrace an alternative cutting-edge technology that is needed to sustain their market position in the future [34]. While there may be a strategic objective of new product development and superficial commitment to it, management often does not put full support behind it. The R & D managers made their careers with the existing technologies, and in fact may have been promoted to their current position as a reward for those technical skills. Their preference will be to continue support work in this same area, both for the sake of their own reputation and because the alternatives are less familiar and they have less expertise with them. New ideas always take more convincing, but this is especially true when the decision makers come from an older school of thought. All the while, there is a risk of losing a competitive advantage as other companies capitalize on the same new ideas. |
|
|
|
|
|