backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 93 comment(s) - last by A Baker.. on Nov 21 at 11:02 PM
Former Intel CEO and co-founder Andrew S. Grove to speak at annual meeting of Society or Neuroscience

Former Intel CEO and co-founder Andrew S. Grove has some scathing words to say to the pharmaceutical industry. During Grove’s tenure with Intel, he saw transistors on a chip grow from 1000 to nearly 10 billion, but treatments for major diseases like Parkinson’s are exactly the same today as they were 12 years ago.

Grove tells Newsweek that he thinks something is deeply wrong with the biomedical research system in the country.

Grove isn’t alone in wondering why researchers are able to heal animals in tests of cancer, make paralyzed mice walk again and other feats, but nothing seems to translate over to humans, which is the point of the research.

One of the best points made by Grove in his Newsweek interview is that in the semiconductor industry, when a device can’t be made the same way twice; they investigate the cause. One such investigation led to a breakthrough that is now a main building block of all sorts of common household devices like cell phones and MP3 players. 

Had the original problem not been investigated, the breakthrough allowing the wealth of electronics devices we enjoy today may have never happened or would have at least been delayed greatly.

In the pharmaceutics industry, when a batch of drugs tested doesn’t provide results better than the results of a placebo group the entire batch is junked with no research into the cause of why the drug didn’t work. Grove says in a nutshell that the pharmaceutical industry is missing a huge amount of potential benefit by not being able to take the things in each failed medication that are good and roll them into one medicine that works.

The mere act of investigating failures in pharmaceutical research could lead to unforeseen breakthroughs that could potentially affect millions of lives worldwide.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
True...
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 6:03:57 PM , Rating: 5
I can't say I disagree with anything that he said. The Pharma industry is probably just as bad as the RIAA/MPAA when it comes to clinging to obsolete business models. If they actually healed people, they'd be doing themselves a disservice.

Ever notice how most of the drugs on the market, especially the newer ones, do not actually cure anything? Instead these drugs just alleviate a few symptoms. The most profitable angle, the Pharma companies believe, is to keep sick people in a perpetual state of treatment - alive and more comfortable than they were before, but not healthy enough to actually say no to the drug they're using for treatment.

If I were an enterprising entrepreneur (and I am), I'd say this lack of innovation is a platinum opportunity. We have the technology to create cures for many of the ailments out there, it's just a matter of getting it done.




RE: True...
By lealwai on 11/6/2007 6:12:19 PM , Rating: 1
Again, i disagree with that. Do you HONESTLY think that all the pharmaceutical companies in the industry's main concern is to NOT cure diseases so we can earn profits from sales? This is not the technology sector. Granted, profits are a huge part of the pharmaceutical business. Also in most cases there is no such thing as actually healing people. Most diseases are chronic/genetic, and cannot be changed by simply administering a med. I'm sorry, your point is pretty much unfounded.


RE: True...
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 6:18:14 PM , Rating: 4
You can't really disagree with what I said, then admit that "profits are a huge part of the pharmaceutical business". Just think about how much business would be lost if there was a drug that cured the ailments that are currently only treated. Have you checked the recent treatment prices?

quote:
Most diseases are chronic/genetic, and cannot be changed by simply administering a med.


Absolutely right, and THAT is the problem. Lack of true innovation.


RE: True...
By lealwai on 11/6/2007 6:28:31 PM , Rating: 1
I truly think it will be impossible to "innovate" to the extent that you will be able to cure diseases. Unless you have more exposure to the pharmaceutical better than me (I'm a 5th year pharmacy student btw). The most we can do at this point is to slow progression of disease.

You also have to take into account that most disease modifying agents have been released within the last 10-15 years. And it takes approximately 10 years for a pharmaceutical company to research a drug and bring it to market due to FDA approval and such. So, in a sense, you could say that the industry is slow in adjusting, but that is mainly because of regulations. Technology is released with glitches all the time which are fixed through following iterations. You dont have that room for error when it comes to releasing a drug


RE: True...
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 6:40:17 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I truly think it will be impossible to "innovate" to the extent that you will be able to cure diseases. Unless you have more exposure to the pharmaceutical better than me (I'm a 5th year pharmacy student btw). The most we can do at this point is to slow progression of disease.


Let's get a round of applause for the FUTURE of the Pharma industry, folks!!! As I mentioned in a previous post, you're only building walls for yourself. You do realize that thinking something is impossible inherently makes it impossible for you to accomplish, ever. :)

quote:
Technology is released with glitches all the time which are fixed through following iterations. You dont have that room for error when it comes to releasing a drug


Ahaha...you're kidding right? Here, have some Vioxx. :)


RE: True...
By rudy on 11/6/2007 7:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
He is actually right, but that does not mean that there is no hope. The future of disease lies in non drug based treatments of enhancements of drug based treatments. Stem cells, genetics, and various other wide ranging fields will bring the next line of treatments and cures. pharmacologist will be helped with better targeting of drugs through technology. In fact I would say that mister grove is actually the main person who could do something but he is too busy playing the blame game. Technology can be used to target drugs to a specific point thus reducing or eliminating the side effects. Many drugs target receptors, the problem is you can only administer them several ways most of which result in the whole body getting a dose. But many receptors serve very different functions in different parts of the body or systems thus when ever you give a drug you can not give it in a high dose and you will get side effects. Targeting drugs through the use of technology will help propel the next generation of drug treatments and cures. This is how many advanced cancer treatments work, things like cyber knife are just an increasingly accurate way of hitting the problem and leaving the good cells alone.

The drug business is hard you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. You develop a drug and every one cries about how much it costs, but they don't know how many drugs you spent 80 million on that failed and they don't know how much it cost you to bring that one to market. Then when you get it going they just rip if off in countries that do not respect IP laws like China and India and sell it back as generic under cutting you. But most of the worlds layman just don't get what is going on in the inside or how things even work, but thanks to blogs movie stars and idiots seems those people are the ones we hear the most from.


RE: True...
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 8:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
He is right if we're subscribing to the current way of thinking...but the solution is out there, and I do believe it is possible to fully cure a disease and/or heal someone.

I cannot think of any drugs that actually cure a disease...all the drugs do is mitigate a symptom or small group of symptoms, because they don't address the body as a system - they target a specific part of the body with no regard to the other components of the body.

We have antibiotics, but they are not a cure, they only assist the body's immune system. It is ultimately the body's ability to create antibodies that fixes the problem...and for diseases that the immune system cannot eliminate, we refer to those as "chronic ailments".

I don't think the solution lies in attacking diseases and ailments head-on, rather we should be looking for ways to boost the capacity and capability of our own natural immune system. How do we do that? Sharks don't get cancer...why not? Crocodile blood will kill most foreign bacteria and viruses including HIV...hmmm...


RE: True...
By lealwai on 11/6/2007 8:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
While that sounds all fine and dandy in your head. Its actually the drugs that are targeted to the specific areas of the body that are currently the best. True, if we could have a dream drug that would make ur entire system better as a whole that would mean the end of the pharmaceutical business, but targeting one organ/system by itself is better at least at this point in pharmaceutical research because it decreases the effects of toxicities on other unnecessary areas of the body, a point in which you have largely ignored. This is largely what happened with Vioxx, it was the best COX-2 inhibitor around at the time because it had the least GI side effects and renal toxicities among other agents of the same class. However initial studies did not adequately show that the risk of cardio-related events was increased (an issue in which all drugs in that class i.e. celebrex still have, just not to that extent). Toxicities cannot be ignored and will always be there in literally every drug on the market. Even if there was a cure to some said disease, there is gonna be a tradeoff to that.


RE: True...
By HeavyB on 11/6/2007 8:51:21 PM , Rating: 3
I'd like to politely point out some misinformation in your post.

1. Antibiotics do generally directly disrupt microbemetabolism and/or proliferation and have no positive effect on the body's immune system. Wanna know something really frigging scary? The number of large pharma companies worldwide that are aggressively pursuing new antibiotics to treat the increasingly drug resistant pathogens is less than 10 (maybe around 5). That's terrifying.

2. Diseases the immune system can't eliminate are called chronic ailments is a partial truth, but what about those diseases where the body's own immune system is causing the ailments. These are chronic ailments, too, and a couple of the most successful antibody therapies target these autoimmune diseases (Enbrel, an anti TNF-a receptor antibody treatment). This is a great example of how difficult it is to make the perfect drug. Take Enbrel to shut off your immune system from attacking you, but cross your fingers you don't get a serious infection, because, if you do, you're in big trouble.

I do like your out of the box thinking in the last paragraph. In general, drug companies want to treat symptoms, for a very long time to reap their profits.


RE: True...
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 10:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's more of a misunderstanding...antibiotics do not "boost" the immune system; they decrease the quantity of a particular bacteria within the body - with varying degrees of side effects. By reducing the quantity of bacteria, they are effectively relieving the body's immune system, allowing it to recover and create the necessary antibodies...the final blow is delivered by the immune system.

You are certainly right about the research into new types of antibiotics being lax. We're still using penicillin after all these years...that says something. I recall there being research into a type of peptide antibiotics. These antibiotics cause the proteins that encase bacterial cells to deteriorate, and eventually die off. Unlike current forms, peptide antibiotics were said to be safe from bacteria becoming resistant.

As for conditions where the body's own immune system is causing the problems, I'd say that is more of a disorder than a disease. IF the white blood cells in our body start attacking our "good" tissues, why does that happen? Are the white blood cells NOT working right, or is there a glitch in the regulatory systems that is instructing them to attack "friendly" organisms? There is certainly some way to revert the immune system back to proper function, but I doubt there is anything on the table today that can do that...which is why we do things like disable the immune system altogether.

One of the keys to maintaining health is to maintain an "equilibrium" of sorts within the body...and I think that a lot of people dismiss potential disruptors of that equilibrium our body tries to maintain. For example, the negative effects of constant stress, urgency (as you feel to get work done on a deadline), sadness/loneliness (as more people choose to be single), etc...these 'troubles' of the mind can have profound effects on the health of the body and result in seemingly unrelated "diseases or disorders".


RE: True...
By rudy on 11/6/2007 10:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
No one is subscribing to anything people are working on every angle they can, but there are 3 billion years of evolution and complexity to dig through. It doesn't happen over night. You only list basic lay concepts and don't even begin to go into the complications or show that we have achieved even the first steps of implementation. We barely know how the human body works and you want to take genetic abilities of 3 phylogenetically distinct organisms and merge them into 1 before we can even modify our own genome. Which goes back to my point, most people making comments have no clue what they are talking about or anything that goes on in the research subject. But they are quick to criticize.


RE: True...
By jtemplin on 11/7/2007 9:52:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
most people making comments have no clue what they are talking about or anything that goes on in the research subject. But they are quick to criticize


Amen.

Martello has some good ideas, but is perhaps putting too much weight on superficial connections between the ideas of Grove and that many current medical interventions are only able to treat the symptoms. Perhaps the pharamceutical industry isn't the most deserving of our trust, but it is also possible to over-estimate the possibilities of our current medical capabilities. It seems you are observing two things and drawing a very conspiracy-like connection between the two when you say that.
quote:
Ever notice how most of the drugs on the market, especially the newer ones, do not actually cure anything?
quote:
Instead these drugs just alleviate a few symptoms.


My "Occam's Razor" alarm goes off when you conclude, from this observation, that there is a strong chance the pharmaceutical company is actively trying to keep people from being cured.
First imaging of a carbon nanotube was done in 1952. The first imaging of DNA was in 1937, although as we all know the full mystery of the structure wasn't uncovered until 1953. However, we are just now beginning to see CNT in consumer products (sports equipment, heatsinks etc) and regarding DNA, the first approved gene therapy treatment happened in 1990. Why not 1960? I think the complicated nature of engineering solutions to the problems of the human body is not one to be underestimated.
My point is that highly technical discoveries take time to trickle down and unlike a nonliving piece of silicon, people are VERY reluctant to rush into anything with a direct risk to humans.

I want to reiterate that while I think you are on to a good idea that curing people may not be in the pharmaceutical companies best interests, I think you need to take into consideration just how difficult of a problem it is to cure people. There is no panacea waiting to be found. And ultimately I think are best bets for treating illness is in nanomedicine. The goal of nanomedicine according to Robert Freitas is the
quote:
comprehensive monitoring, control, construction, repair, defense, and improvement of all human biological systems


PS If you want to be taken seriously, please don't go around saying sharks don't get cancer, this just shows a lack of understanding aboutthe complexities of biological systems.


RE: True...
By NEOCortex on 11/7/2007 11:25:41 AM , Rating: 2
Grove is a smart guy, no doubt, but why does he think that pharma research should progress as fast as semiconductor research.

Silicon is to semiconductor research what the human body is to pharma research. However the human body is a much more variable, and I dare say, complex thing than a device on a silicon wafer. Not to mention its a much more difficult thing to probe the inner workings of, no joke intended.

On top of all that, lets not forget, silicon is not alive. If a device on a wafer doesn't quite work right, you've only lost some time and money, if a drug doesn't work quite right on a human, you have the possibility of doing a lot more damage. Hence the strict regulations and the long time frames for such research.

INTEL does do know how to research, so there might be ways of doing research that could be carried over from one field to the other, I just don't think things are going to speed up all that much


RE: True...
By crazydrummer4562 on 11/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: True...
By mlau on 11/7/2007 1:28:21 AM , Rating: 2
IMHO the medical future belongs to nanotechnology. Think
tiny robots cruising your bloodstream, looking for unfamiliar
substances/cells. Treating various ailments with chemicals
will be a thing of the past.


RE: True...
By maverick85wd on 11/6/2007 6:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't really disagree with what I said, then admit that "profits are a huge part of the pharmaceutical business".

According to my economics teacher, profits are a huge part of all business so I don't see why he couldn't

As far as it taking so long to make serious progress, consider also that you aren't just tinkering with electronic components until something works, you ultimately have to test drugs on humans and before it can get to that point CONSIDERABLE testing has to be done on animals, testing has to be approved, etc... just a much lengthier process in general.
quote:
Absolutely right, and THAT is the problem. Lack of true innovation.

Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at cracking the human genome and curing said chronic/genetic diseases. It's just not the same kind of problem as increasing the number of instructions-per-second a processor is capable of or the bytes-per-second that can be read/written


RE: True...
By EricMartello on 11/6/2007 6:56:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
According to my economics teacher, profits are a huge part of all business so I don't see why he couldn't


Did you need a teacher to tell you that? Making a profit is not a problem, but it is a problem to willfully stifle innovation in order to sustain profits. The bigger a company is, the less agile it tends to be to changes in the market.

quote:
As far as it taking so long to make serious progress, consider also that you aren't just tinkering with electronic components until something works, you ultimately have to test drugs on humans and before it can get to that point CONSIDERABLE testing has to be done on animals, testing has to be approved, etc... just a much lengthier process in general.


The transistors in CURR