If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Think Big Pharma has too much power now? GlaxoSmithKline just bought THE HUMAN GENOME   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 32
    More: Scary, Bristol-Myers Squibb, biotechnology company, GlaxoSmithKline, GSK, lupus, drug companies, HGS, AstraZeneca  
•       •       •

13911 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jul 2012 at 9:30 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-18 09:35:34 PM
5 votes:
Human Genome Sciences, a corporation, not THE human genome. And they're doing it to get a few of the drugs they owned patents to.
2012-07-18 09:32:11 PM
5 votes:
More prescriptions drug overdoses have occurred than street drug overdoses the past several years, Big Pharma legally kills more addicts than cartels do.

/You know, chemically
//Those other shenanigans are just a fun byproduct of prohibition
2012-07-18 09:40:23 PM
4 votes:
It's a lot cheaper for them to hover around like vultures and wait for the start-ups to do the R&D, and then come in for the kill. I don't think this is good, but maybe I'm just naive and believe that medical science should not be conducted by the ruthless mentality and the same lack of integrity of Wall Street, hedge funds, and Mittens' Cayman Island hundreds of millions.

/HGS is only six miles from here
//interviewed there once
2012-07-18 10:00:16 PM
3 votes:
thomps: it's an interesting shift going on where the big phrarma companies seem to be scaling back their r&d and instead acquiring their next blockbuster drugs from start-ups. anyone with deeper experience in the industry care to weigh in on whether that is a good or bad shift (or if it's even a shift at all)?

Big Pharma had enormous resources they could throw at a problem. For the past decade or so, they have been using a research philosophy called "high throughput screening"; basically, the idea was if you increase the rate and number of drugs you test, you will have more successes. Although this seems to be sound reasoning, it was recently shown that, inexplicably, this method doesn't work. Our current models to test the drugs are no where near as complicated as the human body, and we can rarely predict how it will respond. Thus, despite having thousands upon thousands of compounds to test, this method rarely translates into a viable drug (approximately 1:1,000,000 or less make it to human testing).

In my professional opinion, the problem was never one of cramming more compounds into the pipeline, but rather the lack of viable models in which to test effectiveness and toxicity. You would probably be very surprised how crude the process is.

Now, most research laboratories cannot simply test thousands of random compounds. They're forced to use the "rational design" model, ie they have to have a proposed target and mechanism for how their compounds will work. The research is much slower, but if the researchers are correct, and their model holds up, it provides a backbone for further research into less toxic/more effective compounds. This is why Pharma wants to buy them up at this stage--the leg work, the discovery of a viable target, mechanism of action, and finding an effective class of compound, has been done for them.

I would hope Pharma would continue funding efforts to create more accurate models for testing potential drugs. If they don't want to do the work themselves, it would be nice if they started funding some more promising research.

I apologize if you knew most of this and I sounded like I was talking down to you.

/Grad school and 2 postdocs spent determining mechanisms of various drugs.
//In the lab, not on myself
2012-07-18 09:38:02 PM
3 votes:
www.fileden.com
2012-07-18 09:35:38 PM
3 votes:
Just to the right of the article:
"GlaxoSmithKline is to pay $3bn (£1.9bn) in the largest healthcare fraud settlement in US history."
2012-07-18 09:35:28 PM
3 votes:
And Uncle Sam handed themselves a patent for 'cannabinoids as neuroprotectants/antioxidants,' despite that pesky, stupid, illogical -- oh, what? You mean they still classify cannabis as scheddule 1, 'no medicinal value'?

/SAY WHAT?
//i can feel my 2nd amendment getting hard...
/this guy would be retarded or dead if not for cannabinoids 'as neuroprotectants'
//ZING
2012-07-18 09:34:50 PM
3 votes:
PonceAlyosha: From who, exactly? When do I get my share of the check?

That's what I wondered. I would have thought we'd progressed beyond the "I discovered it therefore I OWN it" mindset. IT's like syaing the U.S. owns the moon becuase we were the first people to set foot on it. It was always THERE, someone just took the time to map it.
2012-07-19 11:43:00 AM
2 votes:
Behold, their new logo: www.nervarchives.com
2012-07-18 09:56:50 PM
2 votes:
I have this vision of Big Pharma researchers going into villages the world order to look for new unique genes, and as soon as they're gone, mercenaries move in and wipe the village off the map to protect the patents.
2012-07-18 09:53:44 PM
2 votes:
Subby has proven very effective in this case in illustrating how many Farkers take the time to actually RTFA.
2012-07-18 09:47:33 PM
2 votes:
thomps: it's an interesting shift going on where the big phrarma companies seem to be scaling back their r&d and instead acquiring their next blockbuster drugs from start-ups. anyone with deeper experience in the industry care to weigh in on whether that is a good or bad shift (or if it's even a shift at all)?

I'd say it's a bad shift because it's so hard to get ideas funded through other means. But I'm also currently trying to get an industry job with a bioE phd, so I'm not impartial. But they're mainly doing it to try to avoid the risk/cost of early stage R&D. They let academia develop the ideas, startups do the initial GLP level research, and once something looks promising they gobble it up. It's actually a pretty sweet deal if you're a grad student who is lucky enough to get a project that leads to a commercializable product. When you're in the top level of a startup that is bought out you get major bank, and probably a job with the big company.
2012-07-18 09:40:03 PM
2 votes:
More proof that Big Medicine is trying to make a profit on the backs of its customers. No sense in developing cures and remedies when there's money to be made in the prolonged treatment of symptoms.
2012-07-18 09:38:13 PM
2 votes:

D_Evans45: Just to the right of the article:
"GlaxoSmithKline is to pay $3bn (£1.9bn) in the largest healthcare fraud settlement in US history."


C'mon, you can totally trust them with your genome. No way they would ever pull any shenanigans with it.
2012-07-18 09:10:03 PM
2 votes:
it's an interesting shift going on where the big phrarma companies seem to be scaling back their r&d and instead acquiring their next blockbuster drugs from start-ups. anyone with deeper experience in the industry care to weigh in on whether that is a good or bad shift (or if it's even a shift at all)?
2012-07-19 08:32:16 AM
1 votes:

thomps: it's an interesting shift going on where the big phrarma companies seem to be scaling back their r&d and instead acquiring their next blockbuster drugs from start-ups. anyone with deeper experience in the industry care to weigh in on whether that is a good or bad shift (or if it's even a shift at all)?


I live down the road from HGS and have worked with them for 14 years. This is an incredible turn for them considering they were teetering on the edge of oblivion for a long time.

This was the largest unclaimed low-hanging fruit in MD. Almost all of the other companies here have been bought out. It used to be that there were tons of startup companies hoping to get development contracts with major pharma. Venture capital is getting harder to get because of problems with the economy. After the majority of these small companies go away, my guess is that pharma will start contracting with academia for more and more basic research.

When a pharma company has monetary issues, R and D suffers and all they want to do is produce drugs to make money. They have to keep the pipeline of potential drugs full. Merck bought Schering Plough for their pipeline, for instance ( I call them Schmerck now). They kept the process development group from Schering and laid off the superfluous 23,000 employees. This stuff really hurts but the story is so common now. I wouldn't be surprised to see HGS liquidated in a similar fashion.
2012-07-19 08:21:56 AM
1 votes:
So... with a PhD in biology, is this a good time to go to the dark side and work for Big Pharma?
2012-07-19 08:12:49 AM
1 votes:
I believe I can show prior art that would invalidate this patent. I've had the human genome for years.
2012-07-19 06:17:02 AM
1 votes:
To map the very stuff of life; to look into the genetic mirror and watch a million generations march past. That, friends, is both our curse and our proudest achievement. For it is in reaching to our beginnings that we begin to learn who we truly are.
Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Address to the Faculty"

Meh, +1 talents per base and immunity to an attack that no one uses any ways.
2012-07-19 04:06:27 AM
1 votes:

Coelacanth: I have this vision of Big Pharma researchers going into villages the world order to look for new unique genes, and as soon as they're gone, mercenaries move in and wipe the village off the map to protect the patents.


Don't laugh!

A private company patented the specific genome from a Papua (funny spell check doesn't know Papua .. good ole American software) tribe - they got it from one peep, now no one else in that specific genotype can go to a pharma company and give them their genes.

Honestly patents and trademarks have gotten out of control - and I place 99% of the blame on the USoA. Mickey Mouse was reaching the 'open source' level and heaps of vested interests went into action with their lobbyists and money and before we know it we have had changes to centuries old rules - ie, I can print myself a copies of 1984 in Oz and sell them, but if I tried it in the USoA I would be guilty of infringement.

You peeps have lost control of your power structure, its no longer "by the people for the people", its more like "for the rich, bugger the people" (we all like Mickey Mouse and they made billions off of it, they just wanted to make billions more).

Some similar giggles can be had from the massive distortion of the Olympics we have seen ... personally I still think the athletes should be nude :D
2012-07-19 02:04:28 AM
1 votes:
They make my epilepsy medication so there goes my hope for a cure...
2012-07-19 01:44:35 AM
1 votes:

JustinCase: D_Evans45: More prescriptions drug overdoses have occurred than street drug overdoses the past several years, Big Pharma legally kills more addicts than cartels do.

/You know, chemically
//Those other shenanigans are just a fun byproduct of prohibition

Um. Citations?


Citations
2012-07-18 10:40:27 PM
1 votes:
You can have my genome when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Or my hairbrush. Or my toothbrush. Or that glass I was drinking from.

/Whatever
2012-07-18 10:13:57 PM
1 votes:

born_yesterday: I apologize if you knew most of this and I sounded like I was talking down to you.


Naw, we're good. But I thought our government was footing the bill for a lot of that research?
2012-07-18 09:57:18 PM
1 votes:
GleeUnit: Subby has proven very effective in this case in illustrating how many Farkers take the time to actually RTFA.

Come on....I like the idea that they could buy the actual human genome.
2012-07-18 09:57:10 PM
1 votes:
Nickninja: thomps: it's an interesting shift going on where the big phrarma companies seem to be scaling back their r&d and instead acquiring their next blockbuster drugs from start-ups. anyone with deeper experience in the industry care to weigh in on whether that is a good or bad shift (or if it's even a shift at all)?

I'd say it's a bad shift because it's so hard to get ideas funded through other means. But I'm also currently trying to get an industry job with a bioE phd, so I'm not impartial. But they're mainly doing it to try to avoid the risk/cost of early stage R&D. They let academia develop the ideas, startups do the initial GLP level research, and once something looks promising they gobble it up. It's actually a pretty sweet deal if you're a grad student who is lucky enough to get a project that leads to a commercializable product. When you're in the top level of a startup that is bought out you get major bank, and probably a job with the big company.


On the academic side it's a good partnership. The pharmaceutical companies have always actually been pretty bad when it comes to basic science, which is absolutely critical. They recognize that University researchers excel at it so they they usually form partnerships where they allow usage of their massive molecular libraries. Once one or more good candidates are found they can do what they are really good at, which is refinement, trials, etc.

My group has some similar partnerships with GSK for orphan diseases but this is my first time ever being involved in anything on the research side where there was interest.
2012-07-18 09:54:58 PM
1 votes:
Yeah, great- this will pay off years down the road. Meanwhile, they keep on paying out for getting caught working in grey areas and what do they have in their pipeline? More old people anti-constipation cures? Some more drugs that really have any use in the third world?
2012-07-18 09:50:28 PM
1 votes:
That's nothing. I just bought Mars.


canadianfreestuff.com
2012-07-18 09:45:47 PM
1 votes:
So does this mean they own all children born from hence forth?

Or do parents have to pay them royalties?

Maybe they will send lawyers after women for infringing on their intellectual property.

Do I still own my semen?
2012-07-18 09:36:09 PM
1 votes:
Uh, ....no??

FTA:
Drug company GlaxoSmithKline is to buy Human Genome Sciences for about $3bn (£1.9bn), ending a three-month pursuit of the US biotechnology firm.

Unless Human Genome Sciences already HELD rights to the sequence of the human genome, then... this is just a tech acquisition, no different from Facebook buying Face.com. (hint: they didn't buy everybody's faces)
2012-07-18 09:31:52 PM
1 votes:
From who, exactly? When do I get my share of the check?
2012-07-18 09:25:33 PM
1 votes:
www.chicagonow.com

this will get out of hand...yadda yadda yadda
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report