The cancer researchers Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis made a rather remarkable claim last year. In a commentary that analyzed the dearth of efficacious novel cancer therapies, they revealed that scientists at the biotechnology company Amgen were unable to replicate the vast majority of published pre-clinical research studies. Only 6 out of 53 landmark cancer studies could be replicated, a dismal success rate of 11%! The Amgen researchers had deliberately chosen highly innovative cancer research papers, hoping that these would form the scientific basis for future cancer therapies that they could develop. It should not come as a surprise that progress in developing new cancer treatments is so sluggish. New clinical treatments are often based on innovative scientific concepts derived from pre-clinical laboratory research. However, if the pre-clinical scientific experiments cannot be replicated, it would be folly to expect that clinical treatments based on these questionable scientific concepts would succeed. Read the rest of the article here: http://www.salon.com/2013/09/01/is_cancer_research_facing_a_crisis/
It appears to be criminal fraud by drug companies against the US government and all Americans. Deliberate faking of test results and concealment of dangers. Owners, execs and stockholders should all see lengthy prison sentences for their conspiracy and the possibly tens of millions of lives damaged by them.
So if Amgen can't reproduce these experiments and their competitors can, Amgen will be hurting for sales down the road. Seemed more like some scientists are defrauding the tax payer by taking grants and fudging the science.
The problem is poor people who have no business getting cancer expecting overburdened rich people to support them.
If the pre-clinical work is at a company, then probably no loss to the taxpayers because companies generally aren't going to use grants because of IP considerations. Seems like that was the focus of the article, but it's possible some of the studies happened at institutions, which wouldn't be as focused on IP.
It's a little difficult to know what it all means because the article was vague. How did they determine what is/isn't reproducible? Most preclinical work involves smaller numbers of test subjects, so small number statistics will always be a problem with those kinds of studies. What types of preclinical studies were they attempting to reproduce? Purely from a biotech company standpoint, I can't imagine why a company would ever fudge pre-clinical data. Pre-clinical studies usually focus on tox/side effects and response/efficacy. Given the crazy expense in terms of time and money to develop a drug, I can't think why a company would be incentivized to fudge data that's crucial in the go/no go decision. Even within biotechs, the researchers developing the drugs are not the same people doing the preclinical work, so it's not like the pre-clinical researchers would be biased.
When the article talks about "academia," are they talking about companies? And publishing in peer reviewed journals doesn't square with protecting IP.
Just drink more napalm. It will kill your cancer. Side effects include: death, nausea, trouble sleeping, trouble living. Ask your health care professional for more information.
Honestly, it was hard to tell if they were talking about institutions/universities, companies or both. Academia obviously usually means universities, but journal articles come from both universities and companies, so it's not clear. Publishing doesn't need to cause IP problems -- you just file for patents prior to publishing. Researchers at my company publish frequently, but they just make sure to do it after patent review.
Your earlier post implied that publishing doesn't coexist with patent protection and that's not right. The two can both happen, it just needs to be done in the right order. Totally agree with the huge amount of waste...it just doesn't make sense in the biotech company world to fudge preclinical data. When we get positive clinical data, we spend a lot of time trying to shoot holes in it because clinical development is so ridiculously expensive. You only move to that step if you've washed it in acid and it's still shiny. Edit: off topic, but I'm getting all these google ad links that make it near impossible to go back a page. Is it just me and my outdated browser having that problem?
My earlier post was intended to imply that academia and government are supposed to be doing the pure research that engineers and others in the private sector turn that research into product. If the research isn't repeatable, someone is taking govt. grants and making it up as they go, and the peers doing the reviews are shining it on. There's just a banner size add at the top and bottom of each page. Sometimes they're links. But they shouldn't be getting in your way as you describe. You probably want to download spyware scanner software and virus scanner software and see if somehow you got some malware installed on your system. Cheers
