10 December 2002 18:00 GMT

by Bea Perks

The failure of drug development to keep up with unprecedented advances in biomedical research cannot be excused by the well-worn adage that, since all the treatable diseases have been treated, only the difficult ones remain, says David Lane, professor of molecular oncology at the University of Dundee.

New medical challenges, from HIV/AIDS to antibiotic resistance, continue to appear, he notes. Discovering ways to treat previously overlooked disorders can also hold enormous rewards - take the example of erectile dysfunction and viagra, he adds.

The problem, suggests Lane in an editorial in the December issue of Trends in Cell Biology, can be largely attributed to two major barriers raised by the academic community.

First, research output is measured in terms of number of peer-reviewed papers published, rather than on the basis of originality or utility. Second, scientists are prevented from interacting with industry directly by the frequently "misguided actions" of university technology transfer offices (TTOs).

The trouble with a measure like peer-reviewed publication, he argues, is that it strongly selects for "the rapid, superficial, and brass-necked author who will argue relentlessly for publication." It is also, he warns, "transparently open to fraud." Lane is particularly disappointed to note that the UK University Research Assessment Exercise, which ranks UK universities on the basis of research output, does not count patents as publications.

Rigorous science demands a longer-term outlook, Lane says. Researchers need freedom to tackle time-consuming projects, which won't necessarily generate a regular supply of peer-reviewed publications.

Having said all that, however, Lane, who discovered the tumor-suppressor gene p53 and subsequently founded Dundee-based biotech company Cyclacel, is keen to stress that there is plenty of university research that could be tremendously useful to industry. The problem, notably in the UK, is that interaction between scientists and industry is frequently blocked by universities that are trying to make the process smoother.

Technology transfer officers often file patents on research of "dubious value" and then try to sell it commercially at "ludicrous prices." Meanwhile, the researcher concerned might remain oblivious to the proceedings, claims Lane.

"What the institute needs is the active engagement of its scientists in interaction with industry," he notes. "What industry wants ... is access to the scientist and technology in a rapid and open form."

Often, universities have what Lane describes as a "mythic fear" of being "ripped off" by industry. But while there are reports of university discoveries, notably monoclonal antibody technology, becoming a great commercial success that doesn't feed directly back to the university where the discovery was made, universities should look at the wider picture.

"Monoclonal antibody technology, given to all, has been of tremendous benefit for all mankind and has provided great commercial success," argues Lane. "Universities and other academic institutions should think first (or be encouraged to think first by suitable incentives) to contribute to the success of the economy and secondly to their own profit."

Support for Lane's lectern thumping comes, perhaps surprisingly, from the University of Cambridge's head of technology transfer, Robert Marshall.

"I certainly agree with David Lane's assertion that University TTOs should think first of the success of the economy/society (i.e. creating jobs, new treatments, products etc), and secondly of their own profits," Marshall told BioMedNet News today. "That means striving to do lots of realistic, fair and principled deals, and the irony is (if we can achieve that) then the income for the University and our inventors will improve too."

Send us your comments for publication.

Sign up for BioMedNet News weekly email alerts.