BioPharmaTrend
Latest News
All Topics
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • NeuroTech
  • Premium Content
  • Knowledge Center
Interviews
Companies
  • Company Directory
  • Sponsored Case Studies
  • Create Company Profile
More
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Advisory Board
  • Citations and Press Coverage
  • Partner Events Calendar
  • Advertise with Us
  • Write for Us
Subscribe
Login/Join

Is There an "Innovator's Dilemma" in Biotech?

by Marco Schmidt  (contributor )   •   Feb. 5, 2024  

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed by Contributors are their own and do not represent those of their employers, or BiopharmaTrend.com.
Contributors are fully responsible for assuring they own any required copyright for any content they submit to BiopharmaTrend.com. This website and its owners shall not be liable for neither information and content submitted for publication by Contributors, nor its accuracy.

   Biopharma insight   
Share:   Share in LinkedIn  Share in Bluesky  Share in Reddit  Share in Hacker News  Share in X  Share in Facebook  Send by email   |  

The term "Innovator's Dilemma" was coined by Clayton Christensen in 1997. The Innovator's Dilemma refers to a situation where successful, well-established companies face challenges in adopting and integrating new and innovative technologies or business models, despite their proven success in the existing market.

#advertisement
How BenchSci’s ASCEND Builds a Map for Biomedical Reasoning

I often hear from biotech executives that they also face a dilemma.

Biotech executives often find themselves grappling with a similar predicament, particularly when dealing with innovative new molecular entities (NMEs).

Most biotech innovations revolve around innovative NMEs—active substances with entirely new mechanisms compared to established small molecules or antibodies. This includes revolutionary technologies such as molecular glues, PROTAC, CRISPR, or mRNA.

Developers of innovative NMEs face a critical decision: whether to focus on established drug targets or venture into uncharted territories. The dilemma lies in the perceived risk of testing NMEs in new biological contexts. Should proof-of-concept be demonstrated in a familiar, established field before branching into new ones?

I hold a clear opinion on this matter and am eager to engage in discussions here:

In my view, there is no dilemma.

NMEs should be developed for new drug targets, not against established ones.

Why?

Because, as highlighted by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG)'s analysis, "First-in-Class" typically outperforms "Best-in-Class" in the market: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-023-00048-2

"First-in-Class" underscores the novelty and uniqueness of a drug's mechanism of action, while "Best-in-Class" focuses on superior efficacy, safety, or overall performance within a specific category or therapeutic class.

It's crucial to recognize that drug development inherently carries risks. What I find noteworthy is that our efforts often center on minimizing this risk, inadvertently limiting the potential reward if the innovation proves successful.

biotx.ai
Share:   Share in LinkedIn  Share in Bluesky  Share in Reddit  Share in Hacker News  Share in X  Share in Facebook  Send by email
#advertisement
ThermoFisher Scientific: Integrated genetic technologies for cell therapy development
#advertisement
Webinar: AI in Clinical Trials

BiopharmaTrend.com

Where Tech Meets Bio
mail  Newsletter
in  LinkedIn
x  X
gnews  Google News
rss  RSS Feed

About


  • What we do
  • Citations and Press Coverage
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer

We Offer


  • Premium Content
  • BioTech Scout
  • Interviews
  • Partner Events
  • Case Studies

Opportunities


  • Membership
  • Advertise
  • Submit Company
  • Write for Us
  • Contact Us

© BPT Analytics LTD 2025
We use cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website. Read more details in our cookies policy.