As my first post to the BioCommercialization Blog, I want to focus on what leaves many university inventions to wilt on the vine and never mature into needed medicines: bridging the funding gap between bench top and the first stages of commercial development that some have called the "valley of death." 

Several new university-industry collaborations for funding basic research have been announced recently.  The latest deal between Washington University in St. Louis and Pfizer marks a year where billions of dollars have passed from private industry to both public and private basic research institutions while at the same time federal funding for those same institutions has declined.  The Wash. U./Pfizer deal has been noted both as a “new paradigm for other academic-industry collaborations” and also as a continuation of an agreement between Wash. U. and Monsanto that dates back to 1982.  The $25 million, five-year renewal targets immuno-inflammatory diseases such as arthritis and asthma.  

A few other university-industry agreements entered in the last year include:

• 2007 The Scripps Research Institute and Pfizer ($200M from 2007 to 2012)
• 2008 University of California at Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of Illinois and BP (British Petroleum) ($500M from 2007 to 2017 – targeting biofuels research)
• 2008 The Salk Institute for Biological Studies and Ipsen ($10M/year from 2008 to 2013 – targeting acromegaly, inflammation and other research)

If the past is a good measure of the future, there is a good chance many new technology targets for commercialization will arise from the laboratory benches that can be developed by the industrial collaborators.

I was struck by the very early date of the original 1982 Wash. U./Monsanto agreement.  I am only aware of one other major agreement dating back so early: that between The Scripps Research Institute and Johnson & Johnson ($10M/year from mid-1982 to the end of 1996).  At least one small molecule was discovered and commercialized under the Scripps/J&J agreement.  Leustatin™ (2-chloro-5’-deoxyadenosine) was discovered by Dr. Dennis Carson while he was at Scripps in the 1980’s and developed by J&J subsidiary, Ortho Biotech, as a treatment for hairy cell leukemia.  Sales of that drug is predicted to be about $13M/year (2004 numbers) and is currently in clinical trials as a potential treatment for Multiple Sclerosis.  Thus, it appears that the Scripps/J&J deal was good for both parties.  

Other older, noteworthy agreements include:

• 1992 The Scripps Research Institute and Sandoz AG ($200M from mid-1997 to mid-2007)
• 1994 Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Amgen ($3M/year from 1994 to 2004)
• 1999 University of California at Berkeley and Novartis AG ($25M from 1999 to 2004 – targeted to plant biotechnology research)

Casually observing the numbers above, it appears that the trend toward increased industry funding of university research has been steadily increasing.  However, the numbers available from the National Science Foundation show otherwise:



The Y-axis above shows the percent of university research funded by industry and represents all technologies, not just biotechnologies, but it is likely a good proxy for biotechnologies. 

I am surprised that industry investment peaked in 1996 at 7.5% and is currently at a level not seen since 1983.  I would have suspected that industry would have funded a higher percentage during the peak of the dot-com boom from 2000 to 2001.  I also would have suspected that industry funding would increase after 1996 to supplement industry internal R&D efforts -- how many times recently has the declining drug pipeline, and declining stock prices, been invoked in investor conference calls?

Perhaps the reduced percentage of industry funded academic research indicates that industry is funding technologies at a later stage of the commercialization process rather than at the university innovation stage.  If this is the case, then fewer university innovations will be developed with the assistance of the biotechnology industry.  In addition, many of the above funding arrangements are targeted which leaves research areas outside the targeted area unfunded.  These possibilities raise the need for university researchers to find alternative ways to fund commercial development of their inventions.

While each university-industry research funding agreement provides a source of funding for research and development of university innovations, a large gap still exists between the bench and the first stages of commercial development.  In later posts to the Blog, I hope to provide a few alternatives to these traditional industry and government funding models that may enhance the number of university innovations ultimately reaching market.