Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 9 October 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2008.1161
News
The future of pharma
GSK's research leaders answer Nature's questions about where their company — and their industry — is headed.
These are tough times for big pharma. Companies are looking at diminishing pipelines of potential new drugs, growing competition from generic versions of their drugs and increasing pressure from regulatory agencies to ensure that products are both safe and more effective than existing drugs.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Surprisingly I read that Moncef Slaoui, Chairman for Research & Development at GlaxoSmithKline saied: ?In the field of oncology, yes, because the medicine is targeting those mutated proteins that are responsible for the cancer phenotype. I would say it's an obligation to slice your population that way. More and more I think we will not be talking about 'lung cancer' or 'breast cancer'. We will be talking about cancer driven by [specific proteins like] mTor or Myc or Ras?. If pharmaceutical companies will spend money in such as direction, their future will be surely dark! A long, well-established CLINICAL experience allows me to state that the war against cancer is certainly another, i.e., oncological primary prevention based on Oncological Terrain ?and OT-dependent Inherited Real Risk, I illustrated for more than 30 years, also in www.nature.com, at URL http://blogs.nature.com/nm/spoonful/2008/04/stress_as_a_therapy_1.html#comments . In addition, Moncef Slaoui states: ?And finally, the diseases that we called with one name ten years ago are now called five different diseases, and tomorrow will be called 15 different diseases. We're slicing them into smaller subpopulations that probably require different medicines?. I may agree with him, for instance, as Metabolic Syndrome is concerned, really characterized by hyperinsulinaemia-insulin resistance. However, from Quantum Biophysical Semeiotics standpoint, as I shall illustrate hopefully at MSDA Congress 2009 in Berlin, pharmaceutical company have to take into consideration that Biophysical Semeiotics Constitutions (diabetic, arteriosclerotic, hypertensive, gouthy, a.s.o.) do really exist, and that all Inherited Real Risks are based on those disorders, wich parallel gene mutations, until now not all known! (Stagnaro Sergio. Newborn-pathological Endoarteriolar Blocking Devices in Diabetic and Dislipidaemic Constitution and Diabetes Primary Prevention. The Lancet. March 06 2007. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607603316/comments?totalcomments=1). In my opinion, this is a right way, drug producers have to go on, aiming to reduce the death, brought about by most common epidaemics of our time.
I just paid $8 for this article and it wasn't worth it. Completely lacking in any detail.