Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-Level Complexities in Technological Development: Competing Strategies for Drug Discovery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Science in the Context of Application

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science ((BSPS,volume 274))

  • 1322 Accesses

Abstract

Drug development regularly has to deal with complex circumstances on two levels: the local level of pharmacological intervention on specific target proteins, and the systems level of the effects of pharmacological intervention on the organism. Different development strategies in the recent history of early drug development can be understood as competing attempts at coming to grips with these multi-level complexities. Both rational drug design and high-throughput screening concentrate on the local level, while traditional empirical search strategies as well as recent systems biology approaches focus on the systems level. The analysis of these strategies reveals serious obstacles to integrating the study of interventive and systems complexity in a systematic, methodical way. Due to some fairly general properties of biological networks and the available options for pharmaceutical intervention, drug development is captured in an obstinate methodological dilemma. It is argued that at least in typical cases, drug development therefore remains dependent on coincidence, serendipity or plain luck to bridge the gap between (empirical and/or rational) development methodology and actual therapeutic success.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cushman and Ondetti (1991). For a detailed reconstruction of the case and the role of the interaction model, see Adam (2005).

  2. 2.

    Not included are, for instance, tegaserod (Buchheit et al., 1995), as well as many “me-too” drugs, i.e. more or less close followers to existing drugs, which are regularly designed on the basis of detailed molecular knowledge.

  3. 3.

    Some of the advocates of the new approaches have declared competing financial interests (Butcher, 2005; van der Greef and McBurney, 2005), so one has to be aware of the possibility that the dispute might also be about markets for research technology (cp. Shaffer, 2005).

  4. 4.

    An exception among the cited systems biologists is Van Regenmortel (2004). Among other things, he claims that biological functional properties are essential to systems behavior, and these properties could only be explained on the basis of evolutionary history and environmental factors. Yet, Van Regenmortel’s cases come from the development of vaccines. As biological pharmaceuticals, they might raise different problems with respect to reductionism as the development of synthetic chemical drugs, which is the focus of attention of the other authors.

References

  • Adam, M. 2005. Integrating research and development: The emergence of rational drug design in the pharmaceutical industry. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36:513–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adam, M. 2007. What to expect from rational drug design. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery 2:773–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adam, M. 2008a. Zwischen wissenschaftlichem Verständnis und therapeutischer Wirksamkeit. Pharmaforschung aus wissenschaftsphilosophischer Sicht. In Bittere Arznei. Wirtschaftsethik und Ökonomik der pharmazeutischen Industrie, eds. P. Koslowsi, and A. Prinz, 45–56. München: Fink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam, M. 2008b. The changing significance of chance experiments in technological development. In Selected Contributions to GAP.6, eds. H. Bohse, K. Dreimann, and S. Walter (CD-ROM), 1–14. Paderborn: Mentis.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Ahsen, O., and O. Bömer. 2005. High-throughput screening for Kinase inhibitors. ChemBioChem 6:481–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belleau, B. 1970. Rational drug design: Mirage or miracle? Canadian Medical Association Journal 103(8):850–853.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhm, H.-J., G. Klebe, and H. Kubinyi. 1996. Wirkstoffdesign. Heidelberg: Spektrum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchheit, K.-H., R. Gamse, R. Giger, D. Hoyer, F. Klein, E. Kloppner, H.-J. Pfannkuche, and H. Mattes. 1995. The Serotonin 5-HT4 receptor. 1. Design of a new class of agonists and receptor map of the agonist recognition site. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 38:2326–2330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burch, R.N., and D.J. Kyle. 1991. Mass receptor screening for new drugs. Pharmaceutical Research 8:141–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, E.C. 2005. Can cell systems biology rescue drug discovery? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 4:461–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, M., and P. Finzer. 2006. Explanatory loops and the limits of genetic reductionism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20:267–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chabner, B.A., and T.G. Roberts, Jr. 2005. Chemotherapy and the war on cancer. Nature Reviews Cancer 5:65–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, I.M., R. Henderson, and S. Stern 1999. The diffusion of science driven drug discovery: Organizational change in pharmaceutical research. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 7359, http://www.nber.org/papers/w7359 (last accessed 29 February 2008).

  • Congreve, M., C.W. Murray, and T.L. Blundell. 2005. Structural biology and drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today 10:895–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman, D.W., and M.A. Ondetti. 1991. History of the design of specific inhibitors of angiotensin converting enzyme. Hypertension 17:589–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drews, J. 1995. Intent and coincidence in pharmaceutical research. The impact of biotechnology. Arzneimittelforschung/Drug Research 45:934–939.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drews, J. 1999. In Quest of Tomorrow’s Medicines. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlanson, D.A. 2006. Fragment-based lead discovery: A chemical update. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 17:643–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FDA. 2007. 2007 CDER Update.http://www.fda.gov/cder/present/galson/2007/2007CDERUpdateWCBPJan292007.pdf (last accessed 29 February 2008).

  • Good, A.C., S.R. Krystek, and J.S. Mason. 2000. High-throughput and virtual screening: core lead discovery technologies move towards integration. Drug Discovery Today 5(12, Suppl.):S61–S69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Greef, J., and R.N. McBurney 2005. Rescuing drug discovery: In vivo systems pathology and systems pharmacology. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 4:961–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, L.W., and A. Malikayil. 2003. The impact of structure-guided drug design on clinical agents. Current Drug Discovery 3(December):15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchings, G.H. 1969. Chemotherapy and comparative biochemistry: G.H.A. Clowes memorial lecture. Cancer Research 29(11):1895–1903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horrobin, D.F. 2003. Modern biomedical research: an internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2:151–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitano, H. 2007. A robustness-based approach to systems-oriented drug design. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 6:202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klebe, G. 2006. Virtual ligand screening: Strategies, perspectives and limitations. Drug Discovery Today 11:580–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubinyi, H. 1999. Chance favors the prepared mind. From serendipity to rational drug design. Journal of Receptor and Signal Transduction Research 19:15–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubinyi, H. 2003. Drug research: Myths, hype and reality. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2:665–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, P., K. Wilson, M.G. Patch, and R.C. Stevens. 2002. The genesis of high-throughput structure-based drug discovery using protein crystallography. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 6:704–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipinski, C., and A. Hopkins. 2004. Navigating chemical space of biology and medicine. Nature 432:855–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, R.A., and S.B. Eckhardt. 1990. Drug Discovery. A Casebook and Analysis. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nightingale, P., and P. Martin. 2004. The myth of the biotech revolution. Trends in Biotechnology 22:564–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PDB. 2008. Yearly Growth of Total Structures. http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/home/home.do (last accessed 10 March 2008).

  • Pitt, J.C. 2001. What engineers know. Techné 5(3):17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratti, E., and D. Trist. 2001. Continuing evolution of the drug discovery process in the pharmaceutical industry. Pure and Applied Chemistry 73:67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, E.F., and D.A. Smith. 2004. Is pharmaceutical R&D just a game of chance or can strategy make a difference? Drug Discovery Today 9:18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwardt, O., H. Kolb, and B. Ernst. 2003. Drug discovery today. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry 3:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, C. 2005. Drug discovery veers off target. Drug Discovery Today 10:1489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomke, S., E. von Hippel, and R. Franke. 1998. Modes of experimentation: an innovation process – And competitive – Variable. Research Policy 27:315–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Regenmortel, M.H.V. 2004. Reductionism and complexity in molecular biology. EMBO Reports 5:1016–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincenti, W.G. 1990. What Engineers Know and How They Know It. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. 2004. A return to the fundamentals of drug discovery? Current Opinion in Investigational Drugs 5:29–33.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Darmstadt, Karolinenplatz 5, 64283, Darmstadt, Germany

    Matthias Adam

Authors
  1. Matthias Adam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Adam .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Abt. Philosophie, Universität Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany

    Martin Carrier

  2. TU Darmstadt, Institute for Philosophy, Schloss, Darmstadt, 64283, Germany

    Alfred Nordmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Adam, M. (2011). Multi-Level Complexities in Technological Development: Competing Strategies for Drug Discovery. In: Carrier, M., Nordmann, A. (eds) Science in the Context of Application. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 274. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9051-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation