David Nutt on pharma brain drain

Without a shot in the arm for commercial drug development, our science base will suffer, argues David Nutt

March 28, 2013

Source: Miles Cole

It is a source of enduring frustration to UK drug developers that the NHS is one of the least receptive markets for their new products

The pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has announced plans to close its research and development site in Cheshire and replace it with a smaller facility in Cambridge. The move will cost the UK about 600 research jobs.

This follows the closure in 2011 of Pfizer’s research and development facility in Sandwich, Kent with the loss of about 1,500 jobs, and of Merck’s (known in the UK as MSD) facilities in England and Scotland, which cost many hundreds more. These jobs were largely in high-end R&D, carried out by staff with doctoral and postdoctoral experience who, in terms of number and quality, were equivalent to the science faculties of half a dozen universities.

Ten years ago, the pharmaceutical sector was second only to the financial sector in terms of UK wealth creation. Now all we have left, apart from the downsized AstraZeneca and Pfizer facilities in Cambridge, are the GlaxoSmithKline site in Stevenage, Novartis in Horsham and a smaller Lilly centre in Bracknell. Given the recent trend, I cannot help wondering how long even these will last, particularly since Jon Symonds, Novartis’ global finance director, was threatening to relocate from the UK as recently as November.

The impact on existing careers in the pharmaceutical industry has been tempered by generous redundancy packages and, in a few cases, options for redundant staff to take on unwanted compounds for future development. But the impact on the next generation will be more profound. We have a cohort of highly trained chemistry and life sciences graduates and postdoctoral researchers whose career ambitions will be blighted by the loss of the major commercial outlet for their skills. Their palpable demoralisation will put off the next generation of school-leavers, for whom these areas of science will become much less attractive.

Politicians, for their part, have been appeased by the suggestion that smaller, smarter biotech companies will spring from the ruins and deliver a new future in drug discovery and development. Nevertheless, successive governments have tried to incentivise global pharmaceutical companies to stay in the UK with, for example, patent extensions and grants to support investments - such as the £5 million spent on AstraZeneca’s Cheshire site just before the closure announcement.

The government’s life sciences strategy has tried to inject funds into more translational R&D research, but this is not enough. More systematic change is urgently required. First, we need to explore the real reasons for the closures in order to develop a strategy to halt the trend.

The NHS’ failure to adopt new pharmaceuticals quickly also must be addressed. It is a source of enduring frustration to UK drug developers that the NHS is one of the least receptive markets for their new products - as well as being a source of despair to prescribers.

More radical approaches to patent protection are needed, too. One idea is to allow a licensed pharmaceutical a patent life that reflects the time and cost of getting it to market. Drugs for brain disorders typically take 13 years from concept to launch, cancer treatments only five; but both currently have the same patent life.

Generic competition laws must also be amended. Although these were generated by the European Commission with the good intention of making medicines cheaper, they have undermined the confidence of innovative pharmaceutical firms by permitting rivals to make generic versions of their drugs too early in the products’ life cycles. Despite making large profits, the manufacturers of generic drugs give little back in terms of R&D jobs.

The injection of money into translational medicine pathways by bodies such as the Medical Research Council is welcome, but the funding pathways are not well structured for the development and retention of research staff, so refinement is needed. Another good idea is to provide industry with the high-tech infrastructure that companies themselves cannot afford. An example is Imanova, the new positron emission tomography imaging centre. This MRC-backed operation run by Imperial College London, King’s College London and University College London is attracting pharmaceutical companies from all over the world.

Major investments in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) imaging (both UK inventions) could yield similar inward investments and provide posts for talented young neuroscientists. But the National Institute for Health Research networks for clinical research have not yet justified their investment and need modification to attract company trials. And the processes of research regulation in the NHS, which are so opaque and confused that it can take many years to set up a single trial, need overhauling.

Much can and must be done if we are to prevent the pharmaceutical recession leading to a negative spiral of diminished employment opportunities and fewer qualified graduates that will undermine the UK’s pre-eminence in global research.

Please login or register to read this article

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Reader's comments (2)

"The NHS’ failure to adopt new pharmaceuticals quickly also must be addressed" Surely that happens because so many new drugs are only a marginal improvement (or no improvement) on existing drugs. But they are normally more expensive. NICE, on the whole, does a good job in stopping or delaying, the me-too drugs being paid for by taxpayers. Naturally this is inconvenient for manufacturers, and often leads to an outcry by patients' groups too (only too often the latter are paid by the former). In fact it's the marginal advantage provided by many new drugs that means it takes a long time (and sometimes suppressed negative trials) to persuade NICE that they are worth funding. I don't think it would take long to get approval for something that had a dramatic effect.
Many new drugs are under-tested too. My wife who is a geriatric specialist will not use new drugs for the first three years on the market. The typical drug is tested on a 50 year old with a single illness. It comes to market and is given to 85 year olds with multiple illness and multiple drugs. The result is often a disaster. Interactions/modified metabolism in elderly people mean that it is a living experiment each time a new product is released.

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments