| Literature DB >> 25442934 |
Dennis W Choi1, Robert Armitage2, Linda S Brady3, Timothy Coetzee4, William Fisher5, Steven Hyman6, Atul Pande7, Steven Paul8, William Potter3, Benjamin Roin9, Todd Sherer10.
Abstract
Several large pharmaceutical companies have selectively downsized their neuroscience research divisions, reflecting a growing view that developing drugs to treat brain diseases is more difficult and often more time-consuming and expensive than developing drugs for other therapeutic areas, and thus represents a weak area for investment. These withdrawals reduce global neuroscience translational capabilities and pose a serious challenge to society's interests in ameliorating the impact of nervous system diseases. While the path forward ultimately lies in improving understandings of disease mechanisms, many promising therapeutic approaches have already been identified, and rebalancing the underlying risk/reward calculus could help keep companies engaged in making CNS drugs. One way to do this that would not require upfront funding is to change the policies that regulate market returns for the most-needed breakthrough drugs. The broader neuroscience community including clinicians and patients should convene to develop and advocate for such policy changes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25442934 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.10.027
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuron ISSN: 0896-6273 Impact factor: 17.173