Should big pharma still do in-house discovery and early development? Maybe not; GSK’s unsuccessful efforts to boost productivity suggest it’s impossible for big pharma to re-create biotech-like innovation internally. Learn why big pharma should stick to late-stage development and how it can maintain its competitive advantage.
Author: Melanie Senior
Published: 04 December 2017
Number of pages:4
Should big pharma still be doing in-house discovery and early development? Maybe not, if GSK’s unsuccessful efforts to boost productivity are any indication. GSK isn’t alone: Top pharmaceutical firms face declining returns on their R&D investment, and many are losing talent to biotech. Nevertheless, big pharma still has tremendous expertise in large clinical trials, regulatory affairs, market access and commercialization. GSK’s failed efforts should serve as a lesson for its peers: It’s impossible for big pharma to re-create biotech-like innovation internally. Learn why this is the case, and gain insights into why it may make sense for big pharma to stick to late-stage development.
This is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.