Best and Brightest Forum on Medical Innovation: Seattle
September 21, 2009
University of Washington Medicine, South Lake Union Campus
On September 21, 2009, the Council for American Medical Innovation hosted the fourth “Best & Brightest Forum on Medical Innovation” in Seattle, Washington.
More than 60 innovation stakeholders attended the event including Seattle’s leaders in research, academia, biotechnology, patient advocacy, venture capital, health and medicine. Discussion examined weaknesses in the current infrastructure, and policy changes necessary to allow innovation to thrive in the United States.
Former House Majority Leader and Council Chairman Dick Gephardt opened and moderated the forum, which also featured:
- Eric H. Chudler, Ph.D., Research Associate Professor of Bioengineering at the University of Washington.
- Nancy Dapper, Executive Director, Alzheimer’s Association, Western and Central Washington Chapter.
- Carole Heath, Ph.D., Director, Process and Product Development, Amgen.
- Elaine Jones, Chief Operating Officer, Allen Institute for Brain Science.
- Bob Nelson, Managing Director and Co-Founder, ARCH Venture Partners.
- Chris Rivera, President, Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association
As a result of the event, Joel Connelly, a columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, attended and wrote about the forum in an article titled, “Basic scientific research - U.S. is losing its advantage,” and the Seattle Times ran a guest column by Richard Gephardt, “Washington state's potential as global leader in medical innovation.”
Seattle’s KOMO-4 TV covered the event (Video clip). Richard Gephardt was also interviewed by KOMO 1000 AM radio and KIRO 97.3 News Radio (Audio mp3).
Highlights from the Panel Discussion:
Mr. Gephardt introduced the Council, explained we are working to come up with an agenda to take to Congress to support medical innovation, and asked panelists what should be on that agenda.
Dr. Chudler emphasized the importance of early childhood, elementary and secondary education (Pre-K through 12th grade) in science, and the need for more attention, more federal funding, and new ways to get kids interested in science. He said we need to let the public know the value of science, and this has to come from the very highest levels. "The culture of academia frowns on what I do (programs to teach young kids science), it doesn't bring money into the university. It doesn't bring in any grant money. The university presidents and provosts have to say, 'It's O.K. It's O.K. for our faculty to take time to teach kids about science."
Ms. Dapper spoke of the need for more federal funding for Alzheimer’s research, pointing out that current drugs only slow the disease for some, not for everyone, and we still don’t know what causes this costly and debilitating disease. She spoke of the importance of involving the families of those with Alzheimer's , and the difficulty of finding participants for clinical trials. Ms. Dapper suggested that if we could find ways to bring clinical trials to the patient (rather than making them navigate a confusing system) we would have better participation.
Dr. Heath spoke about the need for more financial incentives for companies to develop drugs, especially in an economic downturn. She emphasized the importance of patent protection and data exclusivity. She advocated for bio-similar legislation to focus on patient safety and efficacy and to make sure smaller companies still have the opportunity to pursue new drugs.
Ms. Jones highlighted the importance of considering new models and approaches to medical research, explaining the Allen Institute for Brain Science is a non-profit that runs like a business, providing open-source data on brain science for free to anyone who wants to use it. They are currently working on a genetic expression map of the human brain, and 20,000 researchers are using their data every month. She also spoke of the need for more incentives for individuals to fund scientific research. Ms. Jones highlighted the fact that translational research may need to come less from inside the NIH peer-reviewed academic environment, and more from an environment run by people who understand risk.
Mr. Nelson likened himself to the ‘canary in the coalmine’ for American medical innovation, and said, “I’m not feeling very good right now, hopefully I won’t die in my cage.â€Â He spoke of the need to focus on allowing the FDA to truly execute its mission – to balance the interests of safety and efficacy – rather than ‘beat them up’ every time there is an adverse event. He also suggested that more public capital funding for Phase III clinical trials – the biggest barrier for biotechnology – would encourage venture capitalist to invest more heavily in early stage innovation.
Mr. Rivera spoke about the need for incentives for innovation here in the U.S., otherwise it will move off shore. He agreed there is a real need for more translational research as there is a gap – partly because of the economy – and companies are struggling to get early stage capital. He also highlighted the need for more public-private partnerships, and the need to educate people and policymakers about the importance of innovation – that it creates jobs, not only for scientists, but for business and marketing professionals and others.
