|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a very high degree of confidence on the part of the public in pharmaceutical products. Thus, significant change from the status quo is unlikely in the immediate future. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The importance of the defense and space-related technology on drug development has been minimal and will probably continue to be disappointing. A more effective utilization of research funding coming from space research and the military defense research consortium could be obtained by a granting system based along the NIH and NSF lines with more decentralization. While the NSF and NIH are most imperfect systems, they are far better at supporting the advancement of knowledge than the military's or space administration's approach. Whether the government turns in this direction cannot be predicted and, in fact, may be unlikely. However, the trend to very big scientific projects has slowed and a more reasonable, decentralized approach is taking shape under the new congressional leadership. I think this is especially encouraging since by supporting new programs, small programs, and diverse projects, we are more likely to see important advances as opposed to the results seen when the established industrial scientific complex and its bureaucracy is the only receiver of support. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still, there is a paucity of government support for pharmaceutical-related research, clinical pharmacology research, and research related to drug development. This is truly unfortunate since there is tremendous public health benefit to be obtained in this area. I am not suggesting government to compete with industry, but in areas where industry is not working, or in more fundamental areas that lead to the discovery and development process or are ancillary to drug discovery and development, government could and should play an important role. However, a major component of the nation's public health research remains solely funded by for-profit pharmaceutical enterprises. The federal government's genome project appears much more promising for the biotechnology gene manipulation sector of drug discovery and development. This information is fundamental and will form the information base of so many discoveries in this area for the future. It is counter-productive for the government to patent its findings and not facilitate the dissemination and utilization of this information in research and practical product development, and it is very good indeed that this approach has stopped and the government is once again returning to its role as a facilitator, not a competitor. That the direction of the genome project is recoiling from the concept of patenting in competition with the private sector is a sign that the federal bureaucracy can be modified and be responsive to the needs of society. |
|
|
|
|
|