Despite high expectations for the "molecular revolution" in biopharmaceutical research, productivity in developing new drugs has been frustratingly low. As a result, a broad variety of diseases, in both the developed and the developing worlds, are not being treated effectively.
PALO ALTO – Despite high expectations, productivity is frustratingly low in biopharmaceutical research and development. Although expenditures have increased, the number of new medicines resulting from human-genome sequencing has not. This means that a broad variety of diseases are not being treated effectively, in the developed or the developing worlds.
Advances in molecular sciences, corresponding to the sequencing of the human genome in the 1980’s, led to the identification of all the human proteins – large, complex molecules necessary for many of the body’s functions. Understanding the proteins’ roles then led to greater knowledge of the underlying causes of diseases. For example, mutations, or defects, at specific molecular locations in human DNA were found to be responsible for some cancers, raising the hope of developing successful therapies tailored to individual patients.
Scientists believed that the ability to visualize and understand human biology at a more detailed level would lead to many new medicines. Identifying the defective molecular parts, known as the drug targets, should have made addressing the causes of disease easier, and would revolutionize the pharmaceutical sciences. And so it has – but without increasing the number of new medicines.
The molecular revolution heralded an era in which drug discovery and development would be rational, not random. Contrary to expectations, however, the increased efficiency implied by target identification has not increased productivity. Efforts to address the problem have focused on how the target was selected, the candidate drugs’ efficacy in humans, the risk of undesirable side effects, and the efficiency of the discovery process – all to little or no avail.
The July issue of Nature Reviews Drug Discovery analyzed how first-in-class medicines – those drugs that successfully established a new class of medicines – were discovered. Despite the emphasis on target-based drug discovery, phenotypic screening produced the lion’s share of the first-in-class small-molecule medicines approved between 1999 and 2008 – 28 phenotypic medicines versus 17 target-based drugs. Considering how strongly biased the industry has been toward target-based drug discovery, that imbalance is highly significant.
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
The Nature Reviews article proposed that lower productivity partly reflects target-based discovery’s lack of consideration of the molecular complexities of how the drugs work. Knowing the parts of an efficient machine – a watch, an automobile, or a computer – is not enough to describe how it works. The parts must collaborate in precise ways to provide accurate time, reliable transportation, or processed information.
Biology is infinitely more complex. The phrase “molecular mechanism of action” describes the way that biological parts collaborate to provide an effective and safe medicine. Addressing the MMOA would contribute to reversing the low productivity of target-based discoveries, because merely knowing the identity of a part involved in a defect may not be sufficient to repair a malfunctioning machine.
The target-based approach is analogous to looking for one’s keys in the dark: if they are under a streetlight, they’ll be easy to find. Many hoped that the molecular revolution would amount to more streetlights for drug discovery. Unfortunately, it appears that this new light, in most cases, is too dim to illuminate the molecular details of the dynamic human biological machine with sufficient specificity to rationalize the design of new medicines.
The random phenotypic process, though less efficient, will ultimately identify medicines that are effective and work to repair disease. The target-based approach, on the other hand, creates only the illusion of greater efficiency; in reality, its promise has been undermined by its inattention to the MMOA.
There are too many molecular possibilities in dynamic human biology to identify a priori the optimal mechanism of molecular intervention. The way forward is to find a method that combines the efficiency of target-based approaches with the authenticity of phenotypic research.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
The economy played a critical role in the 2024 presidential race, creating the conditions not only for Donald Trump to trounce Kamala Harris, but also for a counter-elite to usher in a new power structure. Will the Democrats and “establishment” experts get the message?
explains how and why Democrats failed to connect with US voters’ pocketbook realities.
Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump because she received around ten million fewer votes than Joe Biden did in 2020. The Democratic Party leadership was, at best, indifferent to the erosion of voting access, negligent in retaining newer voters, and proactive in marginalizing what remained of its left wing.
thinks the party has only itself to blame for losing the 2024 election on low voter turnout.
PALO ALTO – Despite high expectations, productivity is frustratingly low in biopharmaceutical research and development. Although expenditures have increased, the number of new medicines resulting from human-genome sequencing has not. This means that a broad variety of diseases are not being treated effectively, in the developed or the developing worlds.
Advances in molecular sciences, corresponding to the sequencing of the human genome in the 1980’s, led to the identification of all the human proteins – large, complex molecules necessary for many of the body’s functions. Understanding the proteins’ roles then led to greater knowledge of the underlying causes of diseases. For example, mutations, or defects, at specific molecular locations in human DNA were found to be responsible for some cancers, raising the hope of developing successful therapies tailored to individual patients.
Scientists believed that the ability to visualize and understand human biology at a more detailed level would lead to many new medicines. Identifying the defective molecular parts, known as the drug targets, should have made addressing the causes of disease easier, and would revolutionize the pharmaceutical sciences. And so it has – but without increasing the number of new medicines.
Prior to this molecular revolution, scientists discovered medicines by randomly evaluating different chemicals against phenotypes – an organism’s observable characteristics – in authentic biological systems, such as animals or cells. But, unfortunately, the phenotypic strategy is neither efficient nor intellectually satisfying.
The molecular revolution heralded an era in which drug discovery and development would be rational, not random. Contrary to expectations, however, the increased efficiency implied by target identification has not increased productivity. Efforts to address the problem have focused on how the target was selected, the candidate drugs’ efficacy in humans, the risk of undesirable side effects, and the efficiency of the discovery process – all to little or no avail.
The July issue of Nature Reviews Drug Discovery analyzed how first-in-class medicines – those drugs that successfully established a new class of medicines – were discovered. Despite the emphasis on target-based drug discovery, phenotypic screening produced the lion’s share of the first-in-class small-molecule medicines approved between 1999 and 2008 – 28 phenotypic medicines versus 17 target-based drugs. Considering how strongly biased the industry has been toward target-based drug discovery, that imbalance is highly significant.
Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
The Nature Reviews article proposed that lower productivity partly reflects target-based discovery’s lack of consideration of the molecular complexities of how the drugs work. Knowing the parts of an efficient machine – a watch, an automobile, or a computer – is not enough to describe how it works. The parts must collaborate in precise ways to provide accurate time, reliable transportation, or processed information.
Biology is infinitely more complex. The phrase “molecular mechanism of action” describes the way that biological parts collaborate to provide an effective and safe medicine. Addressing the MMOA would contribute to reversing the low productivity of target-based discoveries, because merely knowing the identity of a part involved in a defect may not be sufficient to repair a malfunctioning machine.
The target-based approach is analogous to looking for one’s keys in the dark: if they are under a streetlight, they’ll be easy to find. Many hoped that the molecular revolution would amount to more streetlights for drug discovery. Unfortunately, it appears that this new light, in most cases, is too dim to illuminate the molecular details of the dynamic human biological machine with sufficient specificity to rationalize the design of new medicines.
The random phenotypic process, though less efficient, will ultimately identify medicines that are effective and work to repair disease. The target-based approach, on the other hand, creates only the illusion of greater efficiency; in reality, its promise has been undermined by its inattention to the MMOA.
There are too many molecular possibilities in dynamic human biology to identify a priori the optimal mechanism of molecular intervention. The way forward is to find a method that combines the efficiency of target-based approaches with the authenticity of phenotypic research.