Some of you may have seen the Sunday New York Times article that used the example of MIT scientist Robert Langer to explore what it called the “slippery territory” of “the intersection of academic research and the commercial market.”
Slippery? Not so much. Bumpy? Bedeviling? Full of false starts and interminable delays? Absolutely.
Conflicts of interest must be managed, of course. But when it comes to bringing discoveries to those who need them most, Langer’s model is one to emulate. In the end, even the reporter who raised the concern appears to see this point.
The story notes that Langer has helped launch 25 companies and has more than 800 patents issued or pending. His products help treat brain cancer, identify diseases and develop blood thinners. Last February, Langer and our own Jim Anderson were co-authors of a study involving an implantable microchip that uses wireless technology to deliver drugs within the body as needed—one that solves the problem of pulsatile administration of a protein drug.
Yet no matter how beneficial such breakthroughs may be, the article continues, collaboration with the private sector raises questions about conflicts, as well as undue influence on academic research agendas. Concern arose earlier this year when people learned that the president of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center owned stock in a company scheduled to initiate clinical trials at the cancer hospital. The university later announced that the president’s holdings would be placed in a blind trust.