The nature of research, biomedical and otherwise, is changing forever. I can’t predict the exact time it will happen, but, in the not-so-distant-future, there will be very little difference between academia and industry, at least with regards to laboratory research and discovery. In some ways, the scientific community is finding itself in a situation akin to big business, such as a large chain, causing local business to go bankrupt. In the present economic times, it is simply difficult for the 'little guy' to compete with the company that has all the money. In the sciences, collaboration with industry leaders by academia is simply about survival.

It has been argued that combining industry with academic research is an ethical slippery slope and I don’t entirely disagree, although I also don’t exactly hold an idealistic view of academia. Working with industry, for example, it is doubtful that any scientist will own any of their work. Another problem is that industry, for the most part, is focused on profits and the possibility of eventual profits, which puts a big kibosh on the purity of scientific discovery. When money is more important than the results, interesting, exciting and potentially very important research can be shoved aside, simply because it won’t directly result in a profitable product, such as a drug. Additionally, when money is the leading pushing force for scientific discovery, it will often lead to people cutting corners, in order to meet their required experimental goals. Then, again…

Who’s kidding who?

Academia is far from ideal. Scientists often do not own their work, and may not even own, at least not in its entirety, any subsequent patents based on their research. It is owned by the university. With regards to working for money, the same pressures apply when dealing with grant money. The same corners are cut and the same problems exist. Now, however, government funding, a major necessary resource for academic research, has dwindled extremely over the last ten years, and academic research has suffered. For science to survive, creative partnerships are necessary.

The University of California, San Francisco has made multimillion dollar deals with Genentech and Pfizer to advance research and develop new drugs against a variety of diseases. Pfizer has also collaborated with universities in New York City and the Boston area. Gilead, Sanofi, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca, are few of the other pharmaceutical companies that have collaborated with universities worldwide.

Another example of how academic science research is changing, is the inclusion of patents and commercialization activities when deciding on tenure and promotion for faculty members. This is still very much in its infancy and is worrisome for the thought that the pursuit of commercial products would overtake the importance of scholarly pursuits; however, most universities that take patents and commercialization into account, still view teaching, mentoring, and performing scientific research as more important. Including commercialization in tenure review may provide greater incentives for faculty to take more risks and push the advancement of science further, as well as bring a large amount of money into the university.

Yes it is true, that putting more focus on patents and commercialization, as well as collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry, could potentially irrevocably harm academic research. It is possible, but everything in life is a slippery slope. Things can go horribly wrong with any decision. Not making a decision in fear that something would go wrong is the worst thing anyone can do. So, like it or not, times are changing. Not necessarily because it is better or worse, but simply because it is a necessity.