Five years ago I left the bucolic vineyards of Burgundy for the Garden State of New Jersey. While sad at leaving friends, I was confident handing over the reins of my position in business development at Oncodesign to Jonathan Ewing, an American who had recently moved to France. Being the only non-French person in a French company is a unique position with the potential to bring great rewards to both the individual and the company. The language barrier presents an obvious challenge but is one that can be overcome. What is less obvious, but in many respects more pronounced and more difficult to conquer, are the deeper cultural differences that exist. These differences are not just between Europe and North America but also exist between individual countries and arguably between specific regions. Ask any Parisian if they think and feel the same about issues as the Dijonaise and you will quickly find that they are as different as the Parisian and Quebecois dialects.
When I read headlines such as the recent “European pharmaceutical sector is falling behind the United States in terms of innovation and R&D expenditure” I always wonder how true these statements can be and whether it is possible to make such sweeping conclusions. In his latest speech at the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Association (EFPIA), Commission Vice-President, Günter Verheugen expressed his concerns that the European pharmaceutical sector, once the bastion of pharmaceutical innovation, is falling behind the United States in terms of innovation and R&D expenditure. He also discussed the threat to the industry from other countries such as India and China.
I discussed this report with Jonathan Ewing who as Vice President of Business Development for French company Oncodesign travels extensively throughout Europe, North America and Asia meeting with leading pharmaceutical and biotechnology innovators and financiers.
Ewing candidly shared his thoughts on the differences he perceives between companies in the regions he visits. I know from personal experience as a “foreigner” that you are in the unique position of being able to step back and take an overall and dispassionate view of a situation.
“I don’t really feel that there is much difference between European and American Pharmaceutical companies when it comes to their approach to research and development. Most of these companies are multinational anyway and a large part of the compounds that they are developing come from smaller pharmaceutical or biotech companies (which impacts both innovation and R&D). Of course, there is the example of Gleevec (imatinib mesylate), from Novartis, but time may dictate this to be a very unique example. Where Oncodesign is seeing the biggest difference is at the level of the biotech industry. There is a vast difference between what goes on in the United States compared to what we see in Europe and France, in particular. Of course, the biotech industry has a longer history in the US, with more money and finance possibilities available. What is also very different is that in the US there is a more open approach to risk-taking. All of this is related to innovation and R&D budgets and I think that because the biotech industry originated in the US that this is very innovative in itself.”
I share Ewing’s opinion on the differences between Europe and the US in the approach to risk-taking. Indeed the readiness to advocate unconventional or unpopular positions, to tackle challenging problems without obvious solutions, and perhaps more importantly the willingness to make mistakes, are all characteristics that I have witnessed frequently in the US. In France there is often a fear of failure that stifles innovation and when mistakes are inevitable made the American approach is much more “OK, we messed up, now let’s move on”. The European, specifically the French approach, to mistakes is to analyze what went wrong, why it went wrong and also identify who is to blame. While this level of professionalism in analyzing mistakes is useful in preventing further problems, the fear of personal criticism does have a negative impact on innovative thought.
Ewing explained that he felt that these differences apply to companies as well as to individuals.
“At Oncodesign we work with over 130 companies throughout 15 countries so it is perhaps not surprising that we see differences in the approach to clinical development. Overall I would say that the American biotechs exhibit a level of vitality and pragmatism that we don’t consistently see here in France. In the US most biotechs want to develop compounds based on quality science first, and then choose the best ones for clinical development even if they know they can’t do this stage of the development process themselves and will need to enter partnerships or sell the compounds. Often, we have a lot of politics going on in France, which determines how compounds will be developed or if a company will succeed or fail. No one in France gets a second chance to start a company if the first one failed. There are a lot fewer cut and dried decisions, even if this means that the relationship doesn’t work out. Our experience with American companies is that it’s either a success or a failure - but let’s make a decision, move on and focus our money on things that produce results. So clearly things move a lot faster in the US than here. There is an undocumented “trial period” in Europe - getting to know a partner before entering into a working relationship, while in the US, you get to know one another while working together (then you decide if you continue or not).”
Ewing also feels that European companies exhibit a lack of confidence compared with their North American colleagues when it comes to their products or their research.
“European companies always seem to be looking to the US as their point of reference. I can’t count how many times I’ve met with clients and investors who have said “Well, we’re waiting to see how this turns out in the US” or “If they’re doing this in the US, then we have to do the same”. There is also a lot of waiting to see how things play out for others and then either follow in their footsteps or look elsewhere. I don’t know what impact this has on managing R&D expenditure but I do know it kills innovation!”
I asked him whether he thought this trait was prevalent throughout Europe or was it specific to France.
“Of course, there are differences between the European countries. The UK is probably more akin to what’s happening in North American and then Germany is different again. But generally most of the biotechnology companies lack some sort of Pharma encadrement in southern Europe. Where we have seen this Pharma influence (such as the Roche and Aventis spin-offs) I feel that there is a lack of innovation, because most of the companies are developing compounds for the parent company in another form. In this case, the money is there, but where’s the real innovation – except for the investors?”
Ewing suggested that France should be more open to promoting collaboration between public and private research.
“The existence of a healthy relationship between the public and private entities helps to drive innovation in the US. This doesn’t exist on the same level here. In fact, there is a certain taboo on mixing public and private research in France. Out of necessity this is becoming less prominent, but it still exists. It’s very difficult to take a quality research idea in France (and there are some) and translate this into a viable private enterprise. I suppose that in the US, there really aren’t any more pure public institutes, but in France there are few institutes that even operate on a semi-private level. I think that this hurts the innovation of turning an idea into a real benefit for humankind.”
I pressed Ewing to comment on what Commission Vice-President Günter Verheugen called the “threat to the industry” from China and India.
“Without doubt there are great things happening in Europe -- and of course, I feel that we at Oncodesign are driving innovation and quality research in France and setting an example as to what is possible. However, Europe mustn’t be over-cautious when it comes to trying new ideas. After all, when innovation is stifled the economy ultimately suffers. We definitely have to keep a close eye on what is happening in India and China. They have got some great scientists; many with the benefits of a European and/or American education. Their governments have opened the doors to commercial development and many are returning to develop things at home. Here in Europe, we need to be vigilant. The weight of Europe’s social agendas -- although highly beneficial for the people living here – is a brake on development.”
So despite the differences that exist between the approaches taken to innovation and R&D in Europe, the United States and Asia I asked Ewing whether he though that this situation could in fact be synergistic – with Europe providing a necessary reality check to the US, and China and India driving healthy competition.
“Innovation flourishes best in a culture that tolerates experimentation and promotes the free flow of information and ideas, but when we are dealing with products that will ultimately be tested and used in humans, innovation can not be left to run unchecked. Clearly, there is a need for balance. We need to have the freedom and finance to try new ideas but we also need to take the time to consider and debate the alternatives. Sometimes a need to balance resources can in itself lead to innovative approaches to problem solving.”
Ewing and I both agreed that ultimately in clinical research and development it is the quality of the operation and not the deadline or the race to meet it that is important.
Further reading: