In the face of US federal funding cuts, biomedical researchers propose strategies for continued progress in drug discovery. Publishing November 26 in the Cell Press journal Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, their recommendations include harnessing AI and computational analyses in early-stage research, diversifying funding sources, pursuing earlier licensing and commercialization, and fostering international collaborations.
"Scientific innovation in the US is in jeopardy," says author Barbara Slusher of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Johns Hopkins Drug Discovery. "These are some steps we could take to ensure continued scientific progress despite this challenging climate."
It takes twelve years on average for a new drug to go from discovery to commercialization. In the US, the early stages of this process are usually carried out by small biotechnology companies and academic research labs that are largely funded by government agencies such as the NIH and NSF. If these small research groups are unable to continue to conduct research, large pharmaceutical companies—which typically only become involved once products have passed a certain stage of testing—will have to look elsewhere to fill their pipelines.
"The concern is that if pharma is not finding innovative, license-ready programs emerging from US small companies and academic labs, they may increasingly look to other countries—such as China—where substantial investment in science and technology is generating a growing pipeline of assets," says Slusher.
To allow small US companies and academic labs to remain competitive in healthcare innovation, the authors say that researchers should embrace approaches such as AI and computational analyses to cut down on laboratory costs.
"When traditional funding is scarce, computational approaches and AI offer a cost-effective way to accelerate discovery and reduce experimental overhead before expensive laboratory work is undertaken," says author Sean Ekins, CEO and cofounder of Collaborations Pharmaceuticals.
The authors also say that small companies and academic labs will need to find ways to diversify their funding sources by pursuing grants from philanthropic foundations, pharmaceutical companies, global charities, and even crowdfunding. Labs that produce their own software or specialized technologies could also sell these products to help fund their ongoing research, they say.
"What I've learned over the last nine months is that we shouldn't be reliant on a sole source for our research income," says Slusher. "I think it's an important lesson for all scientists to think about diversifying the way they are bringing in resources to fund their laboratories."
The funding cuts might also mean that small research groups will need to license and commercialize products sooner than they otherwise would, the authors say. They noted that earlier licensing could mean that these small companies make less profit in the long term.
Another strategy to keep small companies resilient is to engage in large collaborations, including international and public-private partnerships, the authors say. They point to the fact that these types of collaborations are the norm in Europe, where they allow small research groups to expand their capabilities by sharing infrastructure and access to data and patient groups.
"This also ties into our diversification of funding. Having collaborations means that I don't have to bring in 100% of the funding to move a project forward," says Slusher.
Finding a way to keep healthcare innovation alive in the US is essential for the country's public health, the researchers say. It's also essential for the researchers themselves.
"We worry about the impact of these cuts on the next generation of scientists," says Ekins. "Careers are made or broken with funding, and if the funding isn't here, scientific talent is going to go elsewhere."
