Contract Research Organizations are growing very fast and drug discovery programs are exclusively using these services. However, I think that this culture is not able to produce the drug flow as expected.
This is because the drug discovery knowledge is multidisciplinary and the CRO culture is not able to produce multidisciplinary scientists.
What is your opinion.......
From my experience of working in a drug discovery CRO, I have a slightly different opinion on this.
In my opinion, the CROs basically carry out the same work (computational drug design, synthesis, scale-up, bioassays, formulation etc., albeit separately) as separate R&D departments in a big company would do. In other words, there is not much difference between how different R&D departments work separately and how different CROs would do. It is the educational training (masters or PhD or postdoc) where multidisciplinary knowledge is gained. Otherwise, at least at the entry level in any R&D, one has to work in a single highly specialized research area, so the chances of multidisciplinary training are very small.
However, the key thing that matters the most is the coordination among these departments or CROs. It is this coordination that would ensure how efficiently the separate works would be focussed and channelized to achieve one goal. In turn, it depends the most on the head of the R&D how efficiently such coordination (between departments or involved CROs) is established. If the head of the R&D is successful in establishing the coordination, the research will be efficient like an orchestra, and if the coordination is not successful, it will be chaos irrespective of whether different departments of the same company or separate CROs hired by a company are involved .
Dear Balmukund,
Thanks for elaborating,
However, many University professors prefer to hire CRO facility instead of hiring a PhD or postdoctoral fellow. If we take it economically, it worth too, but for making new generation scientists is it good?
You are true that CROs are doing multidirectional work but is it really a good training for future? As almost every chemists don't know what they are doing except synthesis (they don't know biological activities of molecules). This is because the industry clients do not want to share any information ( to protect their IP).
So do you think we going to a perfect path. Training the next generation pool is better instead of making one man perfect. We are here to pass the information not to hide or to be self centric.
What is your opinion....
Dear Omprakash,
If I understand correctly, the point you are emphasizing is that the scopes of PhD/postdoc getting good training are diminishing due to CRO culture in academics. As you have correctly pointed out, it is a multilateral issue, with no ideal solution since each alternative has its own advantages and disadvantages depending on criteria.
However, this highlights the need of specific professional courses from bachelors level rather than ordinary BSc/MSc studies. Such courses could provide the required multidimensional and practically useful knowledge, which ordinary BSc/MSc studies lack. Availability of such well-trained MSc graduates would certainly motivate hiring of PhD (and then postdoc). This, of course, requires thorough consultations and consideration at policy level.
Thanks for highlighting the important issue of initial training....
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Pharmacology
- Pharmaceuticals
- Drugs