news
New blood to take analytical chairs The cause of analytical science in the United Kingdom is being championed by a close collaborative venture between the main research funding body, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), and the Analytical Division of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). The two organizations made a joint announcement on January 11 for the establishment of several major new research chairs in analytical science, with EPSRC putting forward some $160,000 (£100,000) for each in addition to salaries. EPSRC and RSC hope to have all proposals in by the fall of 2000 and are placing particular emphasis on interdisciplinary research and applications with a strong industrial flavor. “Analytical science is vital to many sectors of industry, and other users in the public sector. We would like to see strong links with the users of analysis so that the research agenda will be addressing their needs,” explains Sue Smart, associate program manager for chemistry at EPSRC. U.K. universities and other institutions eligible to hold an EPSRC research grant can bid for funds either to create a new chair in analytical science or to consolidate existing analytical
activity. The successful bids must show how the new appointment will tightly integrate analytical science into the established research and teaching activities at the institution. There will, however, be no need for bidders to reveal the identities of individuals who might be involved in the initial application, although evidence will be required to demonstrate that “acknowledged world-class researchers will be available.” The RSC and EPSRC intend to pay up to half the salary costs for each chair for five years, with institutions providing the balance of the funding. “We are leaving it to institutions to determine an appropriate professorial salary in order to attract world-class people,” says Smart. EPSRC will also earmark a three-year studentship for each chair. Applicants have until the end of March to file the proposal, and the decision as to which institutions will benefit will be made at a meeting of RSC-EPSRC referees in the fall of this year. Several awards will be made at the end of this year with the goal of filling the chairs by the middle of 2001. “The initiative will help reinforce analytical science, particularly in terms of new blood appointments,” adds Smart. David Bradley
NEWS FROM THE 4TH SYMPOSIUM ON THE ANALYSIS OF WELLCHARACTERIZED BIOTECHNOLOGY PHARMACEUTICALS Elizabeth Zubritsky reports from San Francisco, CA
Public standards for biotechnology products The title of one conference workshop, “Are Public Standards for Biotechnology Products Useful?”, was a strong hint. Even so, the agenda was clearly a surprise. “Is the FDA considering a policy change to public standards?” asked one industry participant shortly after the session began. Yes, said the agency’s Neil Goldman, who chaired one of the workshops. He added that having public standards would likely mean that the agency would partner with the U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) and other organizations because “we probably don’t have the resources to do it quickly enough.” Previously, these standards have
190 A
been private—known only to the company filing the application and the FDA. Changing to public standards would have implications for privacy, acknowledged workshop cochair Gene Murano of the USP. Foremost on the minds of several participants was what value a public standard would have when many of the products would be unique. But perhaps they knew the answer even as they asked the question. As one participant noted, “We heard the same argument 20 years ago . . . and the answer is that, inevitably, there will be generics.”
A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y / M A R C H 1 , 2 0 0 0
One solution offered was that public standards might come late in the lifetime of a product—not until there are multiple suppliers. The more popular suggestion was that public standards be developed for techniques instead—an approach that is already being championed by the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities. And although the beginning of the workshop surprised people, its end did not. When Goldman asked how many manufacturers would support giving public standards to third parties, one person raised a hand halfway,
