J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci (www.ualberta.ca/~csps) 2 (3):88, 1999
|
||
Editorial Commercialization of Academia Research PDF Version for printing With
the shrinking of government research funds during the 1990’s, many
Canadian researchers who did not leave the scene survived, relying on
industry support and commercialization of their ideas. This was done in a
variety of fashions such as contract research, selling of intellectual
properties and establishment of spin-off companies. Expectedly,
independent and curiosity-driven research suffered. There
is no controversy over the benefits of commercialization of ideas and
involvement of scientists in the development of useful products. For
example, it is not difficult to imagine where our quality of life would be
in the absence of commercially available life-saving drugs. However, the
lack of a reasonable balance between independent funding and the
involvement of academic institutions in commercialization of science has
worried researchers and academic leaders. In his address at the Royal
Society of Canada on November 20 1999, Nobel laureate John Polanyi of
University of Toronto suggested that Canada might be in danger of losing
its independent scientific voice if the present trend in commercialization
of academic research continues. It
has been stated that the lack of sufficient government support is
gradually turning university research from an independent, focused and
curiosity-driven activity to a commercially motivated effort with
short-term benefits in mind. One may suggest that independence from
government funding may be expected in a society with a free enterprise
system. However, other, even more entrepreneurial societies, disagree. Due
to a several fold greater per capita investment of government on research
and development in other industrial countries, the industry share of
research cost is smaller. For example, researchers at US universities rely
on half as much direct industry support as their Canadian counterparts.
Direct industry support to universities is more than 12 percent in Canada
as compared with 6 percent in the United States, 3 percent in France and 2
percent in Japan. Indeed, these countries have not deviated from the
principles of free enterprise. Quite contrary, they believe spending
taxpayer’s money on independent research is a very smart and profitable
investment. These countries are aware of the healthy return from their
investment on independent research. They understand that a combination of
independent and product-driven research is needed to succeed. Academic
research and discovery must be free of the market pressure, while
entrepreneurs must focus on the market needs. Fundamental discoveries have
led to today’s high quality of life, independent of commercialization
and short-term benefits. In
Canada, the problem is not an excessive flow of the industrial dollar into
the universities, but the lack of sufficient public or no-strings-attached
funding. This has resulted in a greater percent of the total academic
research budget coming from commercialization. Indeed, per capita
expenditure of the pharmaceutical industry in US is still several fold
greater that that in Canada. Independent
research has turned our academic institutions into powerful scientific
centres. Over-commercialization of these centres will result in the loss
of “all the things industry turns to universities for – breadth of
knowledge, far time horizon and independent voice”, Polanyi suggests. For
their involvement in the development phase, pharmaceutical scientists are
at a greater risk of losing their independence than those in other
biomedical fields. Indeed, in response to request for financial support
from granting agencies, many of our colleagues have come across the
statement that "pharmaceutical research and development should be
supported by drug companies". One wonders if the great discoveries of
Louis Pasteur or Alexander Fleming would have been possible in the absence
of environments conducive to independent thinking. What would have
happened to the late 1998 outstanding discovery of B.J. Marshal, that
peptic ulcer was an infectious disease if he had had to wait for industry
support? After
so many years of budget cuts, the recent increase in the Canadian federal
government biomedical budget is good news. The level of funding, however,
is still well below what is needed for an industrially advanced country
such as Canada. For
the benefit of the public, useful ideas must be commercialized. In the
meantime, it only makes sense to keep the source of ideas alive and well,
otherwise there will be nothing to commercialize. Fakhreddin
Jamali, Fakhreddin Jamali, Editor Published by the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences. Copyright © 1999 by the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences. |
||
|
