Exodus of clinical pharmacologists and pharmacometricians from academia--Who is to blame? A policy statement from the American College of Clinical Pharmacology.
Academic institutes are breeding grounds of innovation and the cradle of future clinical pharmacologists and pharmacometricians. However, there is a crisis looming over academic institutions; funding for research in clinical pharmacology is at an all-time low. This crisis of academic funding is no longer a well-kept secret. This crisis is at a national level and has far-reaching consequences. Federal funding for biomedical research in the United States doubled between 1998 and 2003 and fueled academic research nationally.This funding was considered key to maintaining the edge of the United States in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. However, federal funding for biomedical research has been in decline since that time. Federal funding for biomedical research is estimated to be at least 25% less in inflation-adjusted dollars than it was in 2003, whereas demand for research dollars has skyrocketed.1-3 The increased demand for research money in the face of dwindling federal support may be attributed to several factors. Universities were able to expand their facilities and hire more faculty during the years of surplus funding and now must maintain those facilities and retain key faculty in the face of ever-shrinking federal dollars. Adding to the problem, public universities face decreased funding at the state level, as state governments attempt to balance their budgets. Other sources of funding, such as the pharmaceutical industry, have also dried up, as the industry itself comes under pressure to control costs and faces close scrutiny of its funding of academic research. Finally, the rising cost of conducting biomedical research (both as actual costs and the ever-increasing regulatory burden to conduct those studies) contributes to the problem, as even phase 1 clinical studies may now cost upwards of $4 million.4 As dire as things are for the biomedical research community as a whole, the situation is even worse when it comes to attracting major federal funding for research in the field of clinical pharmacology and pharmacometrics. The key characteristic of being a universally applicable field of research has a considerable downside; clinical pharmacology is a field without the face of a disease that the public cares about. There is no 5K race for “getting the dose right,” in contrast to diseases like breast cancer, diabetes, and AIDS. The public in general does not know what clinical pharmacology is and does not understand its role in the development of new medicines for the diseases that affect loved ones in their families and communities. This is even reflected in federal funding, where the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has traditionally funded basic research while being slow in funding clinical pharmacology–based research. The funding crisis may affect what kind of research is performed in academic institutions, as “fundability” takes precedence over good science. More time is now spent by researchers worrying about how to bring in funds rather than generating truly innovative ideas. The time that used to be spent brainstorming on the whiteboard that fueled and inspired great innovations and mentored and shaped future leaders in the field of clinical pharmacology and pharmacometrics is now spent on decorating, refining, and rewriting research proposals to make them “fundable.” As academic researchers compete for the same small share of grant money, they are realizing that they often need to abandon ambitious innovative ideas for more predictable, less innovative ones, which have higher chances of securing funding. This “risk aversion” has become a serious threat to the innovation engine of academic research in the field of clinical pharmacology and pharmacometrics. The dwindling chances to secure funding, less freedom for bold innovative research, and diminishing returns as the funding gets tighter is resulting in a mass exodus of clinical pharmacologists and pharmacometricians leaders and mentors from academia. Over the last decade as the academic funding crisis has increased in its severity, the faculty members, postdoctoral fellows, staff scientists, and graduate students engaged in innovative clinical pharmacology research in academia have drastically decreased in number. In discussing this funding crisis with respected academic researchers in the field of clinical pharmacology and pharmacometrics, I saw a common theme emerge: “It is a great time to do science, but a terrible time to be an academic researcher.” Unless the situation improves, we may lose key mentors and leaders in academia, resulting not only in lost innovative research in clinical pharmacology and pharmacometrics, but also in the dire consequences of losing an entire generation of future clinical pharmacologists and pharmacometricians. The American College of Clinical Pharmacology believes that it is time for the national clinical pharmacology and pharmacometrics societies to come together to highlight the seriousness of this issue. A quick solution is not forthcoming. First and foremost, these scientific societies need to work collaboratively to generate awareness regarding the field of clinical pharmacology in public and within the federal funding agencies such as the NIH, whether this is through public media social events, 5K races, or other platforms to bring together science and the general public and to create a face for the field. Collaborative partnerships between the pharmaceutical industry, national funding agencies, and academia for continued innovative research and education of future clinical pharmacologists and pharmacometricians will be an effective approach, but will require more than lip service—a true commitment to the field of clinical pharmacology is needed by funding agencies and academic institutions. An effective solution to keep innovative clinical pharmacology and pharmacometrics research flourishing in academia could be funding through development of consortia and cooperative arrangements, particularly precompetitive consortia comprising, for example, the pharmaceutical industry, federal funding agencies, and academia. The consortium model best fosters collaboration among stakeholders with common goals by sharing resources, knowledge, and expertise as well as sharing risk in the most effective way. Several successful examples of cooperative arrangements via consortium already exist, including the Biomarkers Consortium, the Predictive Safety and Toxicology Consortium, and the Patient Reported Outcomes Consortium.5 Innovation in clinical pharmacology and pharmacometrics for the advancement of optimal drug development is a common goal for academia, federal funding agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, and the public—precompetitive consortia could bring these together in an effective way to rescue clinical pharmacology and pharmacometrics from this existential funding crisis in academia. Acknowledged for valuable discussions are Jeffrey S. Barrett, PhD, FCP, Michael J. Fossler, PharmD, PhD, FCP, Mathangi Gopalakrishnan, PhD, Peter Wiernik, MD, Raimund Peter, PhD, Lorraine Rusch, PhD, and Krista Levy.
Read more