Research help for psychiatry fiction
April 5, 2010 12:01 PM Subscribe
For a novel I'm writing, I want to know: would a top research scientist at an important research facility such as New York State Psychiatric Institute, where they test new psychotropic medications, necessarily be in on the patents of the formulations?
Would this scientist be rich? why/how not?
That's not my impression, given my limited experience in these matters, but I'm wondering how it works. A senior scientist, maybe who heads up a team investigating new antidepressants, who gets awards for his great scientist-ism -- what's his relationship to the drug company who would ultimately mass-produce the medication?
Any tips or discussion highly welcome. I want this guy to be extremely bright but pretty nerdy in that he's not that involved or savvy with practical matters of life and finances. But how does that relate to the fact that he's helping to produce drugs that are going to make millions/billions of dollars for the producers of these drugs?
I'd like the circumstances to be fairly realistic, although exaggerations are fine too. thank you
Would this scientist be rich? why/how not?
That's not my impression, given my limited experience in these matters, but I'm wondering how it works. A senior scientist, maybe who heads up a team investigating new antidepressants, who gets awards for his great scientist-ism -- what's his relationship to the drug company who would ultimately mass-produce the medication?
Any tips or discussion highly welcome. I want this guy to be extremely bright but pretty nerdy in that he's not that involved or savvy with practical matters of life and finances. But how does that relate to the fact that he's helping to produce drugs that are going to make millions/billions of dollars for the producers of these drugs?
I'd like the circumstances to be fairly realistic, although exaggerations are fine too. thank you
Well, it depends on his/her role. If the scientist were involved with identifying the gene sequence, let's say, or involved in formulating the chemical or the mixes involved, then he or she might have an inventor's stake. However, my understanding is that most such scientist/practitioner types are involved in clinical trials research, which tests drug safety and effectiveness. As such, scientist person would likely get publication credit should an article about the compound be published, but the patents would reside at the drug company, where the R&D took place.
posted by jasper411 at 12:15 PM on April 5, 2010
posted by jasper411 at 12:15 PM on April 5, 2010
It's not clear to me what your scientist does. If he's the primary investigator in a study of the effectiveness of a medication, and that's it, then he is unlikely to be involved in the formulation of the medication. If he's a researcher coming up with the actual medications, he might be privy to the info, but is less likely to have access to the big bucks to be made from it. If he's developed a process, say for production or isolation of some component, then depending on the institution he might have a piece of a patent.
For a psychiatrist it's much more likely that if he's involved in testing medications and publishing results that he gets a consultancy fee from the pharmaceutical company. These fees can be quite large and can make up a substantial portion of a "research" psychiatrist's annual income.
posted by OmieWise at 1:11 PM on April 5, 2010
For a psychiatrist it's much more likely that if he's involved in testing medications and publishing results that he gets a consultancy fee from the pharmaceutical company. These fees can be quite large and can make up a substantial portion of a "research" psychiatrist's annual income.
posted by OmieWise at 1:11 PM on April 5, 2010
omiewise pretty much has it--there is a distinct difference between "developing" and testing a drug. Testing is usually conducted by independent clinicians following FDA approved protocols and are very very unlikely to be involved in developing, patenting or discovery of the drug. They are usually compensated as part of their regular clinical duties and not by the developer of the drug. However, once the research (testing) is done, submitted and published they may be retained by the pharmaceutical company as consultants or lecturers and received compensation for that. When they do they have to declare an "interest" in the drug. A professional testing a drug could very well be relatively isolated from the financial incentives in developing and marketing the drug--therefore "nerdy" and "naive"--that is less likely for a professional developing the drug. Good luck with your novel
posted by rmhsinc at 1:39 PM on April 5, 2010
posted by rmhsinc at 1:39 PM on April 5, 2010
It can happen but is discouraged. If he is an inventor of the compound and will be getting a royalty if it gets approved you can see the obvious conflict of interest with him running or even participating in the clinical study.
posted by caddis at 2:58 PM on April 5, 2010
posted by caddis at 2:58 PM on April 5, 2010
Response by poster: So --- are you saying that the developer of the drug -- which is what I want my guy to be, rather than a tester of the drug -- would work for the pharmaceutical company itself? That's fine, but my question remains -- would he, as one of the developers, get rich if his drug (say somebody who worked on something like Celexa or Effexor, something like that) took off?
Or would he still be an employee of the pharmaceutical company, and the people who got rich would be the heads of the corporation who produced the drug (like Eli Lilly, whatever, Smith-Kline, etc.), the major shareholders, etc.?
Even though my developer might get awards in his field, because he's so good at developing these drugs?
I'm wondering what the norm would be. Would a member of the group who developed e.g. Effexor probably, by definition, get a nice big salary plus large bonus and therefore be doing very very well financially?
Any leads to researching this culture would be appreciated. I'm having trouble plugging the right terms into google to get me to the right discussions.
Thanks!
posted by DMelanogaster at 4:52 PM on April 5, 2010
Or would he still be an employee of the pharmaceutical company, and the people who got rich would be the heads of the corporation who produced the drug (like Eli Lilly, whatever, Smith-Kline, etc.), the major shareholders, etc.?
Even though my developer might get awards in his field, because he's so good at developing these drugs?
I'm wondering what the norm would be. Would a member of the group who developed e.g. Effexor probably, by definition, get a nice big salary plus large bonus and therefore be doing very very well financially?
Any leads to researching this culture would be appreciated. I'm having trouble plugging the right terms into google to get me to the right discussions.
Thanks!
posted by DMelanogaster at 4:52 PM on April 5, 2010
If the drug developer is under the kind of contract I used to be under when I was a development engineer, then his compensation is his salary and he doesn't own a share of any invention he comes up with. All patents filed in his name belong exclusively to the company; he has no ownership interest at all.
If you want it the other way, so that the developer does have some property rights, then you'd do it like this:
The developer and a few others incorporate as Small Development Team Inc, using VC money. When they reached the point of having a reasonable candidate drug, they make a deal with Huge Pharmaceutical Conglomerate Ltd, who gets an exclusive license in exchange for funding all the rigamarole you have to go through for FDA approval, as well as paying a royalty on the drug once it hits the market.
But between the VC and HPC Ltd, SDT Inc would have to deal away most of the property rights anyway.
By the way, none of that goes against your hero being nerdy. A lot of nerds have formed their own development companies in this and many other fields. (Woz was the nerd's nerd, for example.)
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:31 PM on April 5, 2010
If you want it the other way, so that the developer does have some property rights, then you'd do it like this:
The developer and a few others incorporate as Small Development Team Inc, using VC money. When they reached the point of having a reasonable candidate drug, they make a deal with Huge Pharmaceutical Conglomerate Ltd, who gets an exclusive license in exchange for funding all the rigamarole you have to go through for FDA approval, as well as paying a royalty on the drug once it hits the market.
But between the VC and HPC Ltd, SDT Inc would have to deal away most of the property rights anyway.
By the way, none of that goes against your hero being nerdy. A lot of nerds have formed their own development companies in this and many other fields. (Woz was the nerd's nerd, for example.)
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:31 PM on April 5, 2010
Best answer: The drug developer most likely does not work for a drug company anymore. They used to. Now they work for universities or small start-ups for the most part. The big heyday of drug discovery is passed. The patents are running out, the new drugs in the pipeline are for the most part me too drugs similar to other drugs already on the market. There is promise in biologics but that industry is still in its infancy. The biologics industry is even more controlled by university and small start-ups than small molecules.
In a university the inventor typically gets a cut of the royalty income. The university owns the patent, they license it to big pharma, and after the expenses of the discovery and patent are covered the researcher gets about a third to a half of the royalty income. Not too shabby, especially if the royalty is say 5% on a billion dollar a year drug.
In a start-up the inventor is usually one of the owners. The main business models are license out or sell the company. In either event, being at least part owner, the inventor makes out big time. For a drug in late development which looks to have a high probability of approval and a high revenue stream the licensing fees are going to be north of $100 million and then you add the royalties. that would be for the really big drugs. Smaller ones are proportionately less, but still pricey.
The new model is more shared development, rather than exclusivity. It is fairly controversial but the drug companies are trying to save some money. Long term it will be painful to earnings, although good for consumers. In this model there is less money up front and lower royalties for each licensee but there may be more than one licensee. It's fairly new, untested and perhaps not the model to try and include in your novel unless you have access to someone in the industry who can explain the details and make it real. The old model well described in the literature of exclusive licenses and big fees is still around for the right drugs.
posted by caddis at 7:49 PM on April 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
In a university the inventor typically gets a cut of the royalty income. The university owns the patent, they license it to big pharma, and after the expenses of the discovery and patent are covered the researcher gets about a third to a half of the royalty income. Not too shabby, especially if the royalty is say 5% on a billion dollar a year drug.
In a start-up the inventor is usually one of the owners. The main business models are license out or sell the company. In either event, being at least part owner, the inventor makes out big time. For a drug in late development which looks to have a high probability of approval and a high revenue stream the licensing fees are going to be north of $100 million and then you add the royalties. that would be for the really big drugs. Smaller ones are proportionately less, but still pricey.
The new model is more shared development, rather than exclusivity. It is fairly controversial but the drug companies are trying to save some money. Long term it will be painful to earnings, although good for consumers. In this model there is less money up front and lower royalties for each licensee but there may be more than one licensee. It's fairly new, untested and perhaps not the model to try and include in your novel unless you have access to someone in the industry who can explain the details and make it real. The old model well described in the literature of exclusive licenses and big fees is still around for the right drugs.
posted by caddis at 7:49 PM on April 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
If the inventor is employed by big pharma then they get nothing for the discovery (unless they live in Germany), except, you know, those guys (and gals) who come up big for you here they get certain rewards. One of my buds got an award which ten years ago was worth $50K. OK, this pales by comparison with what the prof gets for a licensed out patent, but it was still probably a half year's worth of salary for something of something that only sells a about a hundred million a year (I know, but in the pharm industry that is peanuts).
(by the way Duke sucks, aggggghhhhhhh)
posted by caddis at 8:38 PM on April 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
(by the way Duke sucks, aggggghhhhhhh)
posted by caddis at 8:38 PM on April 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 12:08 PM on April 5, 2010 [1 favorite]