Learning from Failures or Failing to Learn? Lessons from Pharmaceutical R&D

The repeated setbacks of HIV vaccine development laid the groundwork for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

The decades-long effort to produce a workable HIV vaccine has hardly been a waste of public and private resources. To the contrary, the scientific know-how acquired along the way has served as the critical foundation for the development of vaccines against the novel, pandemic SARS-CoV-2 virus. We retell the real-world story of HIV vaccine research - with all its false leads and missteps - in a way that sheds light on the current state of the art of antiviral vaccines. We find that HIV-related R&D had more than a general spillover effect. In fact, the repeated failures of phase 2 and 3 clinical trials of HIV vaccine candidates have served as a critical stimulus to the development of successful vaccine technologies today. We rebut the counterargument that HIV vaccine development has been no more than a blind alley, and that recently developed vaccines against COVID-19 are really descendants of successful vaccines against Ebola, MERS, and SARS. These successful vaccines likewise owe much to the vicissitudes of HIV vaccine development. We then discuss how the failures of HIV vaccine development have taught us how adapt SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to immune escape from emerging variants. Finally, we inquire whether recent advances in the development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 might in turn further the development of an HIV vaccine - what we describe as a reverse spillover effect.

The endless frontier? The recent increase of R&D productivity in pharmaceuticals

BACKGROUND

Studies on the early 2000s documented increasing attrition rates and duration of clinical trials, leading to a representation of a "productivity crisis" in pharmaceutical research and development (R&D). In this paper, we produce a new set of analyses for the last decade and report a recent increase of R&D productivity within the industry.

METHODS

We use an extensive data set on the development history of more than 50,000 projects between 1990 and 2017, which we integrate with data on sales, patents, and anagraphical information on each institution involved. We devise an indicator to quantify the novelty of each project, based on its set of mechanisms of action.

RESULTS

First, we investigate how R&D projects are allocated across therapeutic areas and find a polarization towards high uncertainty/high potential reward indications, with a strong focus on oncology. Second, we find that attrition rates have been decreasing at all stages of clinical research in recent years. In parallel, for each phase, we observe a significant reduction of time required to identify projects to be discontinued. Moreover, our analysis shows that more recent successful R&D projects are increasingly based on novel mechanisms of action and target novel indications, which are characterized by relatively small patient populations. Third, we find that the number of R&D projects on advanced therapies is also growing. Finally, we investigate the relative contribution to productivity variations of different types of institutions along the drug development process, with a specific focus on the distinction between the roles of Originators and Developers of R&D projects. We document that in the last decade Originator-Developer collaborations in which biotech companies act as Developers have been growing in importance. Moreover, we show that biotechnology companies have reached levels of productivity in project development that are equivalent to those of large pharmaceutical companies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study reports on the state of R&D productivity in the bio-pharmaceutical industry, finding several signals of an improving performance, with R&D projects becoming more targeted and novel in terms of indications and mechanisms of action.

Learning from complex and heterogeneous experiences: the role of knowledge codification

Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to study organizational learning from complex and heterogeneous experiences. According to March (2010), this kind of high intellect learning is difficult to accomplish because it requires deliberate investments in knowledge transfer and creation. Zollo and Winter (2002) emphasized how knowledge codification can facilitate this process, as long as it is “well-performed”. However, knowledge management scholars have yet to explore what is meant by well-performed codification and how to achieve it.

Design/methodology/approach

– This paper addresses this gap and provides a conceptual analysis based on two related but previously disconnected research areas: organizational learning and knowledge management.

Findings

– This paper contributes to the literature in three ways. First, a new understanding of different types of experiences and their effects on learning is proposed. Then the codification process using a critical realist paradigm to overcome the epistemological boundaries of knowledge versus knowing is discussed; in doing so, it is shown that codification can take different forms to be “well-performed”. Finally, appropriate codification strategies based on experience type are identified.

Originality/value

– The abstraction-oriented codification outlined in this paper runs counter to the logic of concrete codification that dominates both theory and practice. Thus, going beyond the traditional debate on the degree of codification (i.e. should knowledge be fully codified or just partly codified), this paper introduced a new debate about the appropriate degree of abstraction.