{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02037351443123939, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003395585738539898, 'mean_word_length': 5.58659217877095, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Perestroika in pharma: evolution or revolution in drug development?

New-drug approvals have remained roughly constant since 1950, while the cost of drug development has soared. It seems likely that a more modular approach to drug discovery and development will evolve, deriving some features from the not-for-profit sector. For this to occur, we must address the deficit in human capital with expertise in both translational medicine and therapeutics and also in regulatory science; utilize regulatory reform to incentivize innovation and the expansion of the precompetitive space; and develop an informatics infrastructure that permits the global, secure, and compliant sharing of heterogeneous data across academic and industry sectors. These developments, likely prompted by the perception of crisis rather than opportunity, will require linked initiatives among academia, the pharmaceutical industry, the US National Institutes of Health, and the US Food and Drug Administration, along with a more adventurous role for venture capital. A failure to respond threatens the United States' lead in biomedical science and in the development and regulation of novel therapeutics.