Time to shut down NIBR

[Anonymous]

All of the great research in the world is worthless if there is no way to develop it.
The development organization has incredibly bad leadership overall and it gets worse by the year. No one has the guts or know how to fix that apparently...What a waste!

 

[Anonymous]

All of the great research in the world is worthless if there is no way to develop it.
The development organization has incredibly bad leadership overall and it gets worse by the year. No one has the guts or know how to fix that apparently...What a waste!

as was pointed early in this thread, there is no credible argument that nibr is working, but a consensus that it isn't. within that consensus there are two strings of thought, 1 - is that the basic concept is flawed and will never work and the other that 2 - it is fundamentally ok but is has been staffed with people with the wrong skills. within that group there is another thread with the post:

"The issue is not Dev docs vs. NIBR docs. The scientific pedigree between the two populations is not materially different. The problem is that very few scientifically trained professionals have sufficient business acumen as well as human resource management skill. Great recipe for disaster. Good scientists, crappy leaders. That's all there is to it."

http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/showthread.php?t=514896

So among the 2 theories the second argues that it takes a special mix of skills to make nibr successful and the leadership there has yet to possess those. the real question is are there enough of individuals available with skills and can they be found in time to save nibr along the the fundamental concept of its founding.

but in either case the problem is that this is also a fundamentally long lead time process and so judging if someone in a leadership position is a success takes a while thus when someone new comes in . . . .

so 7-8 years from now the nibr experiment will be, as described above, either a success or a huge multi-billion dollar flop

 

[Anonymous]

The concept of NIBR is good, the people put in place in the last 5 –7 years to realize it (at least in Basel) at unit head level and above are too incompetent to put it in place.

After staying quiet for a few months, I feel it necessary to chime in on this eve of Christmas eve!
Anyone who thinks that the NIBR experiment is producing results only has to look at the recent achievements that have been rewarded in OTM. People are getting service awards for doing their job, while those that are having to be innovative and clean up everyones else's messes are criticized and demeaned.

Streamline initiatives have been undertaken that undermine the scientific integrity of the studies, BioMarkers is still a mess and any attempt to pool data via new systems has fallen flat, yet the promotoions and awards keep coming while we just combine our new drugs with each other in order to find innovative new therapies...

So instead of developing a fine single malt scothc whiskey, we are mixing up a bunch of Long Island Ice teas and Appletinis for our patients. Give me a cotch, neat, anytime...

 

[Anonymous]

After staying quiet for a few months, I feel it necessary to chime in on this eve of Christmas eve!
Anyone who thinks that the NIBR experiment is producing results only has to look at the recent achievements that have been rewarded in OTM. People are getting service awards for doing their job, while those that are having to be innovative and clean up everyones else's messes are criticized and demeaned.

Streamline initiatives have been undertaken that undermine the scientific integrity of the studies, BioMarkers is still a mess and any attempt to pool data via new systems has fallen flat, yet the promotoions and awards keep coming while we just combine our new drugs with each other in order to find innovative new therapies...

So instead of developing a fine single malt scothc whiskey, we are mixing up a bunch of Long Island Ice teas and Appletinis for our patients. Give me a cotch, neat, anytime...

the problem with nibr is the name. institute makes it sound academic like the whitehead institute. nibr is really part of novartis pharma and these academic discards forgot it. they alwyas get 1.5 multiplier and always under deliver and overprovmise. they dont even know how to run a study or even know what a poc is. whilst the rest of the organization contracts and lays off, nibr builds more building. they havent delivered a viable drug in a decade. mckinsey said to spin it off because it has npv<0. fisman is an arrogant dictator who think he knows drug development and he can't even spell it. does he know anything other than vasella?

 

[Anonymous]

I am dumbfounded. Wasn't it NIBR that developed Fingolimod? That is a great success, no? And was Novartis R&D productivity any better before the creation of NIBR? So why are you guys so venomous about NIBR productivity? I should say that I am not at NIBR (I am a scientist though).

wasn't it one particular guy at NIBR who downplayed the early cardiac issues and then we got into all the trouble with the FDA?

 

[Anonymous]

Just for the record Gilenya was not developed by NIBR. It was in- licensed from Mitshubishi and then developed by Novartis development. NIBR did assist in doing tox work, and pK studies standard stuff which could have been done by a contractor had NIBR not existed.

 

[Anonymous]

I think that we can all agree that Vasella leaving is the end of the steaming turd that is NIBR

 

[Anonymous]

I think that we can all agree that Vasella leaving is the end of the steaming turd that is NIBR

Right....I'm sure there willbe a re-Jorganization! Around year end. Imagine how much more BD we could do with that budget!

 

[Anonymous]

Europe bets on drug discovery

Two sites shuttered by the pharmaceutical giant Merck, one in Scotland and one in the Netherlands, will soon be humming again with the work of drug discovery. But the hum will not be business as usual. It will be the sound of a public–private consortium placing a high-stakes wager: a nearly €200-million (US$271-million) bet that it can boost a languishing pharmaceutical sector by fusing academic innovation with industrial-scale screening, using robots to test chemicals for biological activity.

http://www.nature.com/news/europe-bets-on-drug-discovery-1.12372

Is Novartis involved? If not, do they think that NIBR is the answer and if so, I guess that they don't?

 

[Anonymous]

Why is NIBR hiring and building when they don't produce any useful molecules. All they do are stupid research projects like some academic center. They dont even know they work for a company. They always get 1.5 multiplier each year. Mark Fishman is too powerful and has ruined Novartis. Blowing billions each year on stupid pet projects and not executing studies.

Time to shut down the waste. We're get our best assets externally anyway.

_______________________________________________________________________________

The discovery process in the Novartis Institute of BioMedical Research (NIBR) focuses on disorders in which there is unmet medical need and good mechanistic understanding. This approach has increased the success rate from preclinical through Phase II trials to more than 20%, three times the industry average. Companion diagnostics and biomarkers, especially in oncology, where most Phase I and II trials have patient selection markers included, have enabled early patient selection for clinical trials, reducing overall development timelines and costs. As a result, Novartis has shown greater than average pipeline return on investment achieving highest average annual peak sales of first launched productsamongst industry.


http://www.drug-dev.com/ME2/dirmod....0&tier=3&nid=A4B32807FA8B4A3AB7FFC085B09E5DF2

 

[Anonymous]

_______________________________________________________________________________

The discovery process in the Novartis Institute of BioMedical Research (NIBR) focuses on disorders in which there is unmet medical need and good mechanistic understanding. This approach has increased the success rate from preclinical through Phase II trials to more than 20%, three times the industry average. Companion diagnostics and biomarkers, especially in oncology, where most Phase I and II trials have patient selection markers included, have enabled early patient selection for clinical trials, reducing overall development timelines and costs. As a result, Novartis has shown greater than average pipeline return on investment achieving highest average annual peak sales of first launched productsamongst industry.


http://www.drug-dev.com/ME2/dirmod....0&tier=3&nid=A4B32807FA8B4A3AB7FFC085B09E5DF2

pure bs propaganda and everyone but the guy who wrote this and the guy who posted it

 

[Ex sandoz]

_______________________________________________________________________________

The discovery process in the Novartis Institute of BioMedical Research (NIBR) focuses on disorders in which there is unmet medical need and good mechanistic understanding. This approach has increased the success rate from preclinical through Phase II trials to more than 20%, three times the industry average. Companion diagnostics and biomarkers, especially in oncology, where most Phase I and II trials have patient selection markers included, have enabled early patient selection for clinical trials, reducing overall development timelines and costs. As a result, Novartis has shown greater than average pipeline return on investment achieving highest average annual peak sales of first launched productsamongst industry.


http://www.drug-dev.com/ME2/dirmod....0&tier=3&nid=A4B32807FA8B4A3AB7FFC085B09E5DF2

Exactly propaganda- this is a novartis press release dumbass, not an analyst. Nibr is a corrupt organization populated by fishman's chronies, former roommates, and academic failures, all handpicked to insulate himself from any commercial accountability. The commercial successes were from programs pre nibr and/or bought in from the outside. Nibr's "success" has come from jackpotting Phase Ii trials by lowering the bar for efficacy in specialized target patient populations. No hope of making any money (assuming something even actually makes it through Phase III) needed to sustain nvs, to say nothing of recouping development cost. Good for press releases, exorbitabt bonuses, and snowballing investors, but bad for the bottom line.

Jeorg is back, and lets all hope that he brings the hammer down on nibr and repatriates the r&d headquarters before these nibr "leaders" bleed this once proud company dry.

 

[Anonymous]

pure bs propaganda and everyone but the guy who wrote this and the guy who posted it

I wonder if people from other companies that are afraid of Novartis are posting here (against NIBR) because R&D of Novartis is making their pants wet...... Novartis is most admired in pharma sector, it has got highest number of drugs in pipeline and in much better shape for patent(s) cliff(s) in comparison to other companies. is cash king.

People from NIBR publish in nature and science. (I dont know if sales rep even know these journals). How many pharma companies have that ind of rigor ??? May be Genentech but that's it.

 

[Anonymous]

Exactly propaganda- this is a novartis press release dumbass, not an analyst. Nibr is a corrupt organization populated by fishman's chronies, former roommates, and academic failures, all handpicked to insulate himself from any commercial accountability. The commercial successes were from programs pre nibr and/or bought in from the outside. Nibr's "success" has come from jackpotting Phase Ii trials by lowering the bar for efficacy in specialized target patient populations. No hope of making any money (assuming something even actually makes it through Phase III) needed to sustain nvs, to say nothing of recouping development cost. Good for press releases, exorbitabt bonuses, and snowballing investors, but bad for the bottom line.

Jeorg is back, and lets all hope that he brings the hammer down on nibr and repatriates the r&d headquarters before these nibr "leaders" bleed this once proud company dry.

Ex-Sandoz - your ID tells all. You were probably loser and laid off during sandoz' merger......I understand your bitterness and I am sorry for you.

 

[Anonymous]

the problem with nibr is the name. institute makes it sound academic like the whitehead institute. nibr is really part of novartis pharma and these academic discards forgot it. they alwyas get 1.5 multiplier and always under deliver and overprovmise. they dont even know how to run a study or even know what a poc is. whilst the rest of the organization contracts and lays off, nibr builds more building. they havent delivered a viable drug in a decade. mckinsey said to spin it off because it has npv<0. fisman is an arrogant dictator who think he knows drug development and he can't even spell it. does he know anything other than vasella?

Look at the publication track of most of investigator, Anyone would have got faculty position. But some dislike writing grants, some like more money for doing science and some simply love boston. so they are no academic discards. If you are selling drugs as sales rep it does not mean that you were not capable of doing MS or PhD or becoming a doctor or engineer.

 

[Anonymous]

Exactly propaganda- this is a novartis press release dumbass, not an analyst. Nibr is a corrupt organization populated by fishman's chronies, former roommates, and academic failures, all handpicked to insulate himself from any commercial accountability. The commercial successes were from programs pre nibr and/or bought in from the outside. Nibr's "success" has come from jackpotting Phase Ii trials by lowering the bar for efficacy in specialized target patient populations. No hope of making any money (assuming something even actually makes it through Phase III) needed to sustain nvs, to say nothing of recouping development cost. Good for press releases, exorbitabt bonuses, and snowballing investors, but bad for the bottom line.

Jeorg is back, and lets all hope that he brings the hammer down on nibr and repatriates the r&d headquarters before these nibr "leaders" bleed this once proud company dry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis Group continues to lead the industry with 56 new approvals in the US, Europe, Japan, and China since 2007. In 2012 alone, the Pharmaceuticals division has received nine approvals or positive recommendations to date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Anonymous]

Exactly propaganda- this is a novartis press release dumbass, not an analyst. Nibr is a corrupt organization populated by fishman's chronies, former roommates, and academic failures, all handpicked to insulate himself from any commercial accountability. The commercial successes were from programs pre nibr and/or bought in from the outside. Nibr's "success" has come from jackpotting Phase Ii trials by lowering the bar for efficacy in specialized target patient populations. No hope of making any money (assuming something even actually makes it through Phase III) needed to sustain nvs, to say nothing of recouping development cost. Good for press releases, exorbitabt bonuses, and snowballing investors, but bad for the bottom line.

Jeorg is back, and lets all hope that he brings the hammer down on nibr and repatriates the r&d headquarters before these nibr "leaders" bleed this once proud company dry.

Scientists dont get bonuses. They dont get prius to drive. They dont get signing bonuses. NIBR expenditure is not because of hiring scientists but because of nature of Research. It is expensive. Harvard MIT Yale Duke etc together spent billions of dollars in the labs of best and the brightest in the past decade, they also could not cure cancer or Autism.

Non-Scientists should learn to argue with SOME intelligence. Genentech flourished as long as a scientist ran it. Now it is struggling. Pfizer bloomed as long as a Chemist ran it and now look at it. Novartis reached sky when a doctor ran it. God knows about future. Non scientific people know only to buy licenses like cunning shopkeepers, cut the cost by laying off people , or reducing their resources, and do brutal marketting with a hope that you can shove the product by enticing doctors with gifts and lunches, and criticize their own R&D (instead of making organization attractive for bright scientists).

 

[Anonymous]

Look at the publication track of most of investigator, Anyone would have got faculty position. But some dislike writing grants, some like more money for doing science and some simply love boston. so they are no academic discards. If you are selling drugs as sales rep it does not mean that you were not capable of doing MS or PhD or becoming a doctor or engineer.

Well said...Very well said....

 

[Anonymous]

Scientists dont get bonuses. They dont get prius to drive. They dont get signing bonuses. NIBR expenditure is not because of hiring scientists but because of nature of Research. It is expensive. Harvard MIT Yale Duke etc together spent billions of dollars in the labs of best and the brightest in the past decade, they also could not cure cancer or Autism.

Non-Scientists should learn to argue with SOME intelligence. Genentech flourished as long as a scientist ran it. Now it is struggling. Pfizer bloomed as long as a Chemist ran it and now look at it. Novartis reached sky when a doctor ran it. God knows about future. Non scientific people know only to buy licenses like cunning shopkeepers, cut the cost by laying off people , or reducing their resources, and do brutal marketting with a hope that you can shove the product by enticing doctors with gifts and lunches, and criticize their own R&D (instead of making organization attractive for bright scientists).

this would be credible if it came from a scientist in an organization with any scientific credibility - nibr is a laughing stock both in the eyes of academia as well as industry research organizations. it's like a professor from a 3rd rate university talking about how a good university should be run. until you get more results you can say all you want but no one will listen.

 

[Anonymous]

this would be credible if it came from a scientist in an organization with any scientific credibility - nibr is a laughing stock both in the eyes of academia as well as industry research organizations. it's like a professor from a 3rd rate university talking about how a good university should be run. until you get more results you can say all you want but no one will listen.

If you search pubmed there are lots of papers published by NIBR scientists in high profile journals (including the topmost journal Nature) that are reviewed by scientists in organizations with lots of scientific credibility.