|
Penicillin: Pharmaceutical Companies: Oxford to AmericaFor U.S. firms to commit to penicillin production, however,
they needed to know if the tremendous financial investment would prove
worthwhile. In other words, did penicillin's therapeutic action merit
the heavy sunk costs that would be endured by pharmaceutical firms? The
Oxford team's 1940 Lancet paper on the role of penicillin as a chemotherapeutic
agent convinced Martin Henry Dawson, Karl Meyer, and Gladys Hobby, researchers
at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons, to investigate
penicillin further. In September-October1940, having contacted Ernst Chain
and receiving cultures from Roger Reid, the Columbia group began producing
penicillin and administering it to patients at New York's Presbyterian
Hospital (Helfand, et al., 31). Their work continued into 1941, thereby
initiating the earliest clinical trials of penicillin in the U.S., and
it became clear "
that if properly purified and available in
sufficient quantity, penicillin could be used parenterally and probably
effectively in the treatment of infections due to susceptible microorganisms"
(Hobby, 73). They presented these results to the Society for Clinical
Investigation in May 1941. [Possible visuals include both Lancet articles
published by the Oxford team as well as Fleming's 1928 paper-see attached
primary bibliography for these sources. I have these articles in my possession.] Pfizer subsequently learned of this paper, marking the link
that existed between commerce and academic science. The company contacted
Dawson to express its interest in assisting the Columbia group by producing
increased penicillin quantities. In recommending itself, Pfizer emphasized
its experience with mold fermentation in the production of citric, gluconic,
lactic, tartaric, and fumaric acids (Hobby, 167). Pfizer was not the only
drug company that was interested in research on antimicrobial organisms
prior to Florey and Heatley's visit to the U.S. Selman Waksman's consulting
work with Merck during the 1930s "
had sown the seeds for the
company's subsequent interest in antimicrobial substances-an interest
that spread easily to nearby E. R. Squibb and Sons [in New Jersey]"
(Hobby, 175). In 1936, Squibb, in fact, already had begun investigating
penicillin's potential for further experimentation and production, the
company's interest arising after a 1932 study conducted by Clutterbuck,
Lovell, and Raistrick. Likewise influenced by the 1932 study, Merck, with
Waksman's help, began growing penicillin in 1940 and seeking its active
principle. Lederle also had been working with penicillin for ten months
prior to Florey and Heatley's arrival, while other firms, such as Winthrop
Chemical Company, Inc., displayed a more casual interest (Helfand, et
al., 32). [The 1932 study's full citation, taken from Helfand, et al.,
31, note 1, is Clutterbuck, P. W., R. Lovell, and H. Raistrick, "The
formation from glucose by members of the Penicillium chrysogenum series
of a pigment, an alkali-soluble protein and penicillin-the antibacterial
substance of Fleming," Biochem. J. 26 (1932): 1907-1918. A source
that may reveal previous pharmaceutical company intent regarding penicillin
is S. Waksman, Microbial Antagonisms and Antibiotics (New York: Commonwealth
Fund, 1945)-cited in Hobby, 175, note 15.] Moreover,
in addition to the Columbia group, several other physicians and researchers
associated with the College of Physicians and Surgeons devoted themselves
to studying streptococcal and pneumococcal infections. These clinicians
and scientists interacted not only with one another, but also with staff
members at Merck, Squibb, and Lederle, while Meyer served as a consultant
to Schering and Co. (Hobby, 174). Wallace Herrell, who had heard the Columbia
group's presentation to the Society for Clinical Investigation, initiated
tissue culture studies of penicillin at the Mayo Clinic with Dorothy Heilman.
They reported their findings at the December 1941 meeting of the Society
of American Bacteriologists; this "first [U.S.] symposium on antibiotics"
received press coverage, heightening the interest of the scientific community
and public alike (Hobby, 109). These projects, coupled with observations
made by the Columbia group that substantiated the Oxford team's initial
findings, thus further peaked commercial interest. [Hobby fails to cite
the Society of American Bacteriologists' proceedings from December 1941.] While the research on penicillin at the NRRL was underway
by July 1941, Richards, who was impressed by Florey's presentation to
him of the Oxford team's results, planned the first conference to stimulate
extended penicillin research. Vannevar Bush, the director of the OSRD,
presided over the conference, held on October 8, 1941. In addition to
Richards and Bush, Lewis H. Weed, vice-chairman of the CMR, William Mansfield
Clark, chairman of the NRC's Division of Chemistry, and Charles Thom attended
the conference. Richards also contacted "
the four research
directors of commercial firms thought to be capable of producing penicillin,
namely, R. T. Major of Merck and Co., Inc.; George A. Harrop of E. R.
Squibb and Sons; J. H. Kane of Charles Pfizer and Co.; [and] Y. SubbaRow
of Lederle Laboratories" (Richards, 442). Florey already had approached
Squibb, Lederle, and Merck regarding penicillin manufacture, and Richards
invited Pfizer due to its experience with industrial-scale fermentation.
[Neither Hobby nor Richards refers to biographical information on these
directors, nor could I locate an image of the group at the conference.] The objective of this first meeting was to encourage the
drug industry to examine penicillin on a larger scale and to produce enough
of the substance to allow additional clinical evaluations and chemical
investigation. While a follow-up conference was held a month later, it
was the third meeting that served as a turning point in the path towards
production. As opposed to the earlier meetings, this third conference,
held in New York on December 17, 1941, included not only the pharmaceutical
companies' research directors, but also their chief executive officers.
The CEOs expressed concern over the technological potential for producing
mass quantities of penicillin. Yet upon hearing Robert D. Coghill, the
head of the NRRL's Fermentation Division, report the 12 to 20 times increase
in penicillin production during the previous two months alone, due in
large part to the work of mycologist Andrew Moyer and Heatley, the corporate
heads grew optimistic. For instance, George Merck, who had previously
believed mass production impossible, emphasized, "
'if these
results could be confirmed in [Merck's] laboratories, it was possible
to produce the kilo of material for Florey, and industry would do it!'
" (Neushul, 382). Highlighting the significance of this conference,
specifically regarding commerce's integral role in penicillin production,
Coghill "
later remarked that, as a result of the NRRL report,
a new pharmaceutical industry was born" (Neushul, 382). The December meeting marked the changing priorities of both
the government and industry relative to penicillin production. The heightened
interest in penicillin development evolved for several reasons. A prime
factor was Florey and Heatley's journey to the U.S.-a visit strengthened
by the Oxford team's initial findings, by their second Lancet article
in August 1941, and perhaps by Heatley's work first at the NRRL and then
for six months at Merck (Hobby, 90). Florey and Heatley's visit, coupled
with the Columbia group's validating report in May 1941 and the advances
at the NRRL in the fall 1941, revealed penicillin's astounding antimicrobal
activity, thereby contributing to the government and industry's growing
involvement in penicillin evaluation and production. The press may have
played a crucial role as well, for its widespread coverage of penicillin
developments from May 1941 until the end of WWII "
put strong
pressure on the government and the pharmaceutical industry
"
in addition to creating an insatiable public demand for penicillin (Hobby,
109). Finally, the U.S.'s entry into WWII with the December 1941 Pearl
Harbor attack altered Richards's initial goal of finding at least one
firm to produce enough penicillin to satisfy Florey's immediate need and
examine penicillin's potential for mass production. U.S. wartime pressures
now "
[demanded] that every possible means of combating infection
in battle casualties be explored" and that production efforts be
hastened, requiring the collaboration of research science, government,
and industry (Hobby, 161). |
Copyright © 1997, 2002 University of Pennsylvania HSS |