HMS Strategic Planning |
|
APRIL 22, 2008Message from the DeanDear Colleagues: In the third installment of reports from the advisory groups, I am happy to share with you the white paper from the Biomedical Research Advisory Group subcommittee on Therapeutics. As I described in a previous message, this report is one of a set of 6 or 7 white papers resulting from the efforts of this advisory group. The list of reports posted so far can be found here. This is an area I have been thinking about for a long time; it seems natural for Harvard Medical School to have a focused effort relevant to the development of novel therapies. The goal would not be to emulate the pharmaceutical industry, of course, but to create a new program that would synergize with our existing efforts in research and education. The explosion in biomedical research, for example in genetics and cell biology, has led to a tremendous amount of new knowledge, and yet the drug "pipeline" seems to have remained essentially unchanged. The question is, why is this, and can academia change the equation? I am grateful to Don Coen (BCMP), the subcommittee chair, and to the other members of the subcommittee for their effort in analyzing the opportunities for HMS in this area. In particular I would like to thank Bill Chin, President of the Harvard Medical Alumni Council and Vice-President of Discovery Research and Clinical Investigation at Eli Lilly and Company, for his involvement. As discussed in the Therapeutics white paper, there are many ways in which academics might be able to contribute to the science of therapeutics, such as identifying new targets, developing novel therapeutic modalities, and even through bioengineering approaches. There are also fundamental questions such as why toxicity and efficacy are unpredictable, which might lead us to focus on scientific questions about how therapeutics work, systems pharmacology, and pharmacogenetics. An area of particular interest to the Steering Committee was the question of how to improve the predictiveness of animal models, and whether useful mouse models are even possible for some diseases. Don Coen has provided a thoughtful response to these questions in Appendix 4 of the white paper. After discussions with the Steering Committee and with many of you, I remain convinced that there is a real opportunity for intellectual leadership here. That does not mean that we have yet decided to make a substantial investment in this area. The questions of what HMS could do that is fundamentally different and how one might structure such an effort remain open. But I am encouraged to move forward with further discussions and consultations within and outside the community. I look forward to hearing from all of you on your opinions on this matter. You may send your thoughts directly to me, to the subcommittee members, or submit a comment via this website. Jeffrey Flier
|
HOME
|