Is India about to become the next hotbed for original pharma research?

Pass the paracetamol.

The Indian pharmaceutical industry could be about to step up to the big league with the launch of a new original diabetes drug, Lipaglyn, developed by homegrown pharma group Zydus Cadilla. With annual revenues of $1bn, Zydus’ chairman and managing director Pankaj Patel, expects the new drug, which tackles both high blood sugar and cholesterol in a single pill, to more than double that amount, calling it a potential “blockbuster”.

Due to be released in the coming months in India, it will take another 3-5 years of clinical trials before being cleared for sale in the more tightly regulated western markets. After years of the Indian pharma industry producing cheap knock-offs of western medicines, it is “time for India to give back,” according to Patel, “(having) benefited for years from the research and development efforts in other countries.”

This reputation for a culture of imitation drug production has led to repeated accusations from western pharma companies of poor IP protection by Indian authorities. US giant Pfizer, among others, have called on lawmakers to do more to protect the millions spent on R&D, which will not be turned into revenues if the Indian generics market is allowed to continue churning out cheaper alternatives. This culminated in US Secretary of State John Kerry discussing the issue with Indian policymakers during his recent visit to the country.

But that has still not stopped some companies falling foul of the Indian system, with the Supreme Court rejecting Novartis’ bid to protect its new leukemia drug with a patent in January, paving the way for India’s pharma companies to produce generic versions at a fraction of the cost. Gleevec, which can cost up to $31,000 a year in India is now being undercut by the generic version, which costs just $2,100 a year.

Still, Zydus’ Lipaglyn could be the start of a move from generics manufacture to original research across the rest of the Indian pharma industry. G. Shah, secretary-general of the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance, sees this latest development as critical if Indian pharma companies, such as Glenmark and Biocon are to compete on the world stage; “Our credibility is at stake now… People have been branding us as a copycat industry, and this is a departure from that,” he said. “We are not just copycats, but we are transforming into creating original research products also.”

Zydus have spent close to $450m developing new drugs since 2001, while Glenmark spent nearly $1billion on R&D in the last year alone. However, not everyone shares this enthusiasm, with Gayatri Saberwal of the Institute of Bioinformatics and Applied Biotechnology, Bangalore, last year voicing his concern over the Indian pharma sector’s R&D abilities. Based on analysis of the patents being granted in the sector, he found a tiny minority were for genuinely original research, thus making the “prospects for original drug discovery in India poor,” he said. “There is probably a long way to go for Indian companies to undertake highly innovative work”.

Just what success the Indian industry is able to achieve internationally will not become apparent on these shores for some time yet, with the development of news drugs taking years. So we will have to stick to our tried and tested remedies in the short term at least, just as the Indian generics industry will also continue to cause a headache for western pharma companies until their original research starts to bear fruit. Pass the parcetamol.

Photograph: Getty Images

Mark Brierley is a group editor at Global Trade Media

NS
Show Hide image

Labour is condemned to watch helplessly as Theresa May consolidates power

The Zombie Party is too weak to win and too strong to die. 

Labour’s defeat to the Tories in the Copeland by-election in Cumbria, which the party had held for more than 80 years, is a humiliation for Jeremy Corbyn and his moribund party. This is the first time a governing party had gained a seat in a by-election since Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives won Mitchum and Morden in 1982. 
 
The victorious candidate Trudy Harrison, who increased the Tories’ share of the vote in this former Labour “stronghold" by more than 8 percentage points, hailed the victory as “truly historic”, while Labour MP John Woodcock called it a “disaster”, and even the shadow chancellor and Corbyn ally, John McDonnell, conceded it was a “profound disappointment”. 
 
At a time in the electoral cycle when a credible opposition should be winning by-elections and riding high in the polls, Labour is in disarray: rejected, humiliated, ridiculed. It has all but collapsed in Scotland, where the Tory leader Ruth Davidson has emerged as the popular, unapologetic leader of Unionism. And in England the danger now is not that it will lose seats to Ukip — whose leader Paul Nuttall was rejected yesterday in the Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election, which Labour held on a low turn-out after a dispiriting campaign — but to Theresa May’s Conservatives. 
 
The Copeland result was a vindication for Theresa May. When recently I interviewed her in Downing Street she had a simple message for Labour: we are coming after your voters – and she is. 
 
Because of its embrace of the radical left and internal divisions, May accused Labour of abandoning many of its traditional supporters. The party was not responding to their concerns on issues such as “the impact of immigration on lower income levels”.
 
True enough: Corbyn favours mass immigration and open borders yet is an economic protectionist – a classic Marxist position but electoral suicide in our new emerging post-liberal era in which populist movements are rising across Europe and an America First nationalist is in the White House.
 
“I hope there are Labour voters,” Theresa May told me, “out there who will now look at us afresh and say, ‘Labour hasn’t responded to our concerns, it hasn’t recognised what matters to us, but the Conservatives have seen that and are responding to it. I want our greater prosperity not to be confined to particular groups of people or a single part of the country.”
 
The polls suggest that more than simply disaffected Labour voters are looking at the Tories afresh, as we embark on the epic challenge of negotiating the Brexit settlement.
  
May believes that Brexit was not only a vote to leave the European Union but a demand for change from those people – many of them in places such as Copeland - who felt ignored and excluded from prosperity and greater opportunity.
 
Her vision is for a “Great Meritocracy” (whereas Corbyn’s is for a socialist republic) combining greater social justice with enhanced social mobility. It’s an intellectually fascinating and ambitious project and, if successful (and many doubt her, not least her own right wing), it has the potential to condemn Labour to electoral oblivion.
    
The collapse of the Labour party as a stable and credible political force is dismaying. Many of the party’s problems precede Corbyn, who is sincere and determined but is not a national leader. But then neither was Ed Miliband, who misunderstood the financial crisis, which he believed had created a “social democratic moment”, and misread the country he sought to govern. Miliband treated politics like an elevated Oxbridge PPE seminar and introduced the new rules by which the party elected its leader, disempowering MPs.
 
The distinguished Cambridge historian Robert Tombs has called the European Union a system of “managed discontents”. Something similar could be said of Corbyn’s Labour, except that its discontents are scarcely managed at all.

Most Labour MPs despise or are embarrassed by their leader. The MPs are divided and demoralised, with some pondering whether to follow Tristram Hunt and Jamie Reed (whose resignations created respectively the Stoke Central and Copeland by-elections) out of politics. The Corbynites are breaking up into factions (one hears talk of “hard” and “soft” Corbynites), and Corbyn himself is incapable of appealing to those who do not share his ideological convictions.
 
For now, the Labour leader retains the support of activists and members and, crucially, of Unite, Britain’s biggest union and the party’s paymaster. But even his friends must accept that he is leading the party in only one direction – into the abyss.
 
On the eve of the two by-elections, Corbyn posted a message on Facebook: “Whatever the results, the Labour Party – and our mass membership – must go further to break the failed political consensus, and win power to rebuild and transform Britain.”
 
The statement was received with derision on social media. The idea that Labour can win power any time soon (notwithstanding some black swan event) is magical thinking. Corbyn’s personal ratings among traditional working class semi-skilled and unskilled Labour voters are catastrophically poor. He appeals to students, affluent metropolitans with degrees, and minority groups. As for the majority of the electorate, forget it.
 
MPs are reluctant to challenge Jeremy Corbyn because they know any leadership contest would revitalize his leadership, as happened last summer when the Welsh MP Owen Smith mounted an ill-considered and doomed “coup”. Nor is there a pre-eminent candidate waiting in the shadows to strike, as Michael Heseltine was in the last years of the Thatcher administration.
 
So Labour will continue to be the Zombie Party: too weak to win but too strong to die. Its founding mission was to defend the labour interest and to create a fairer, more ethical society. But Labour has lost its role, its confidence and sense of purpose. Obsessed by identity liberalism, bewildered by Brexit and led by a radical socialist, Labour can only look on helplessly as the Tories start to win seats in its former heartlands and hunker down for another decade or more in power.

This column was originally published in the London Evening Standard.

Jason Cowley is editor of the New Statesman. He has been the editor of Granta, a senior editor at the Observer and a staff writer at the Times.