The Future of Research within the Biotechnology Revolution

  • R. Fears
Chapter
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSPS, volume 19)

Abstract

During the last 20 years, there has been considerable progress in the contribution made by novel medicines to healthcare, but there are still major, unmet challenges to face in selecting and delivering optimum healthcare strategies. Biotechnology, and in particular genomics R&D, will aid our understanding of the disease processes underlying both single gene disorders and multifactorial disease. In consequence, we will be better placed to develop curative rather than symptom-relieving drugs. This will be revolutionary. In addition to the value for the patient, there are significant economic benefits to be gained from a new approach to drug discovery. The annual cost of uncured diseases in the US is estimated at.$100 billion or more each for Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease; $40–50 billion each for arthritis and depression and $20–30 billion each for osteoporosis and stroke.

Keywords

Technology Transfer Biotechnology Company Single Gene Disorder Informational Service Philips Research Laboratory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    IBC Conference (1997) Technology Transfer in Biomedical Research, Scrip Reports, London.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, L, Fears, R., and Taylor, B. eds. (1997) Managing Technology for Competitive Advantage, FT Healthcare, London.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poste, G. (1997) Preface, in J. Anderson and R. Fears (eds.) Sustaining the Strength of the UK in Healthcare and Ufe Sciences R&D: Competition Cooperation and Cultural Change, ScienceBridge, Surrey, p. 4.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fears, R., Greig, R., and Poste, G. (1994) Human genomic research and innovative medicine, Science in Parliament 51, 4–5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lumley, C.E., and Dorabjee, S. (1996) Trends in Pharmaceutical R&D, Centre for Medicines Research, Surrey.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Business Decisions Limited and Science Policy Research Unit (1997) Benchmarking the Competitiveness of Biotechnology in Europe, EuropaBio, Brussels.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Pharmaceutical Industry Council (1997) Pharmaceutical Industry Manifesto, London.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stevens, T. (1997) The gene machine, Industry Week 16 August.Technology Foresight Steering Group (1995) Progress Through Partnership, Office of Science & Technology, London.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fears, R., and Poste, G. (1995) Enabling the future: An industry perspective on the Foresight science policy exercise in the life sciences Science Technology and Innovation October, 26–30.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Verma, IM, and Somia, N. (1997) Gene therapy–promises, problems and prospects, Nature 389, 239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Zhao, B., Janson, C.A., Amegadzie, B.Y. D’Alessio, K., Griffin, C., Hanning, CK, Jones, C., Kurdyla, L, McQuency, M., Qiu, X., Smith, W.W., and Abdel-Meguid, S.S. (1997) Crystal structure of human osteoclast cathepsin K complex with E-64, Nature Structural Biology 4, 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Fears
    • 1
  1. 1.New Frontiers Science ParkSmithKline Beecham PharmaceuticalsHarlow, EssexUK

Personalised recommendations