Hear directly from 15 Korean native drug development researchers who are actively, yet unseenly, developing new drugs, fueling failure and enduring the test of time. This is the story of the most intense field.

(After liberation and the Korean War) there must have been a customer who came to buy medicine.
Maybe the pharmacy didn't have that medicine.
You must have seen the back of a customer leaving his contact information behind, asking to be sure to let you know when he gets the medicine.
If the patient takes that medicine, it might save his life, so he goes out of his way to find the medicine.
They go to US military bases, Japan, and other places to find medicine.
But this way, the problem could not have been solved.
So you make a decision.
Let's make some medicine.
As we add decisions to decisions, we end up making the decision to develop a new drug.
It's something I've never done before.
It's a really boring story, but isn't it similar to everyone else's?
--- p.29 From “Interviewee Im00”

In Korea, the way our research is viewed is rather more frustrating.
You can really compete, you are actually competing, but the preconceptions creep in.
There is a view that the obesity treatment market has been taken over by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly.
But we are competing with them in patents and data.
Global pharmaceutical companies that are actually competing with each other acknowledge this, but there is an atmosphere in Korea where this is not acknowledged.
It's killing the momentum overall... It's unfortunate, but eventually, if we develop a new drug, the atmosphere will change.

--- p.61 From “Interviewee Choi 00”

People are the problem.
I've been struggling for 20 years to find the know-how, so I need someone to pass it on to.
That way, there will be a next time.
Opinions may differ, but I believe that know-how is not simply technical.
This includes things like attitudes and habits, as well as thoughts and beliefs.
The same goes for technology.
Well-organized research notes are sure to be helpful to others.
But just reading research notes doesn't transfer the skills.
It's hard to explain in words, but there is something like that.
Developing new drugs is directly related to medicine and pharmacy.
Medicine and pharmacy are empirical disciplines.
The doctor who has seen many patients becomes the best, and you can't beat someone who has been developing medicine for a long time.
Therefore, there should be many places that can provide experience in developing new drugs.
That would have to be a new drug development research institute of a pharmaceutical company.

--- pp.99-100 From "Interviewee Lee 00"

I think confidence is important.
If you study properly for a long time, your knowledge will increase and your perspective will improve.
I can make my own judgments, so I don't have to worry about following trends too much and researching.
If you can make a judgment call, "It'll probably work out eventually!" based on evidence, you can invest consistently.
Of course, since we cannot know everything about the world, we may ultimately fail.
But if you do it right during that time, you will accumulate know-how.
You get to know things that you can't get anywhere else, like how to do R&D for new drug development.
That alone is a huge asset.
Because you can do it again with it.

-- p.120 From "Interview with Kang 00"

It seems important to value the small, visible achievements.
New drugs don't come out every day.
Success leads to increased sales, increased confidence, and a stronger consensus around the proposition that R&D is the only way to survive.
But since it doesn't happen every day, there's an inertia to go back to the way it was.
In that respect, it was important to develop a new drug.
In the new drug development division, small growth results are steadily accumulating.
From the R&D department to the sales department, and even the management, we gain confidence by consistently seeing small successes.
You will realize that if you conduct research, you will see results, and if you see results, sales will increase, and you will become a company with an increasing possibility of developing new drugs.
And at some point, the doubts disappear.
R&D is something that must be done, and new drugs are something that must be developed.
If everyone takes this part for granted, a new chapter opens.
Businesses can't always be good.
One way or another, crisis comes at some point.
Then, a consensus is created across the board that the crisis must be overcome through R&D, and the crisis is actually overcome through R&D.
And then again, this culture is reinforced.

--- pp.138-139 From "Interviewee Kim 00"

There must be a mat.
A boxer who only hits well cannot win a match.
You can't get in the ring and not get hit at least once.
The opponent you are competing against is also a boxer who has trained hard.
So, there has to be a matt house.
Until I can hit properly, I have the strength to not fall down even if I get hit.
How can you never fail in developing a new drug?
It fails.
You get beaten up and even fall down.
Then you need to get up quickly and get back into position.
Unfortunately, it seems like there's no other way to build up your stamina than to get hit a lot.
You have to fail a lot so your body learns what to do when you fail.
--- pp.166-167 From "Interviewee Kim 00"

It seems absurd that a drug development researcher would not know the pharmaceutical market.
But I don't know.
If you don't know the pharmaceutical market, that's a blessing.
There are many cases where we don't know what kind of research other researchers are doing or how they are doing it.
If researchers just focus on their own research in their own labs, there won't be any major problems right away.
I think this is why there aren't many new drugs coming out.
Researchers developing new drugs must be familiar with clinical trials, regulatory approval or clearance, drug manufacturing, and marketing.
Of course, there are experts in each field, and it is impossible to know everything, even the most specialized ones.
Still, you should know to some extent.
One of the most common misconceptions among researchers is ‘first.’
‘World’s first’ and ‘Korea’s first’ are important.
But ‘first’ itself does not have industrial significance.
If you think about it, all researchers are researching something for the first time.
No one does a second study.
So, researchers need to understand that just being the first doesn't necessarily mean it's a new drug.

--- p.186 From “Interviewee Song00”

There is no place in Korea that has developed a blockbuster new drug.
Then everyone is in a similar situation.
Each pharmaceutical company is striving for different strategies, but until a blockbuster new drug is released, there will likely be no significant differences.
At this stage, I don't think it makes much sense to go ahead or behind.
There are just people who take on the challenge of developing new drugs and those who don't.
The difference between those who are truly striving to develop new drugs in Korea and the pharmaceutical companies that are making the effort may not be that great.
I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic.
I'm not very good at making predictions.
I can't even guarantee next year, so how can I expect 10 years from now?
What I can say for sure is that if I were still in the field 10 years from now, I would probably still be working hard to develop new drugs like I do now.
If you're lucky, you'll have developed a blockbuster drug in the meantime, but if you're not, you'll still be struggling.
--- p.228 From “Interviewee Lee 00”

We learned a lot from the problem that researchers tend to be overly generous with the candidates they create.
From then on, I try to receive external advice very strictly.
The principle was established to seek advice from outside sources, even if it meant spending money.
Rather than simply seeking advice from investment firms, we seek advice from a wide range of experts, including marketing and clinical professionals.
Sometimes, you take it abroad and get it evaluated.
Both internal and external evaluations are rigorous.
Biotechs that have spun off their initial research projects are also evaluated.
Everyone is strict.
When evaluating value, we pay 5 to 6 times more attention than the general level.
It's so excessive that it almost seems excessive.

--- p.243 From “Interviewee Jeong00”

There is a camaraderie among those developing vaccines.
It's especially stronger within a company.
All smart businesses work to make money.
Maybe the companies that make vaccines are just trying to make money doing their job.
Because we need money to continue developing vaccines.
Those who benefit from vaccines are the weak.
The elderly and children are representative examples.
The same goes for people in developing and underdeveloped countries.
It's something that needs to be done, but it doesn't get much attention.
So, I think that in order to work on vaccines, you need to have a public mindset.

--- p.277 From “Interviewee Park 00”

When we evaluate the value of a company, we set various criteria.
Among companies manufacturing electric cars and developing spacecraft, which one should be valued the most? The key would be a keen eye for cutting-edge technology and an aggressive approach to product development utilizing that technology.
Pharmaceutical companies are a little different.
Of course, pharmaceutical companies are also sensitive to cutting-edge technologies, and it is important for them to aggressively develop new drugs by utilizing those technologies.
But fundamentally, how much good the pharmaceutical company is trying to do is also an important criterion.
We're making products that treat sick people.
Without a mindset like, "I really want to cure the disease," or a mindset like, "There should be no side effects," developing new drugs can be a risky endeavor.
You may be lucky enough to succeed once or twice, but it will be difficult to maintain that success for long.

--- pp.310-311 From "Interviewee Lee00"

The Korean pharmaceutical industry has a long history.
But we still have a long way to go to catch up with global standards.
Right now, we are competing in the small Korean market.
We mainly develop generic and improved new drugs.
Fortunately, our technological prowess has reached a fairly high level, making us competitive in the Korean market and exporting to developing countries.
However, it is difficult to continue growing in this way.
I think we've reached a critical point.
After all, it's not much different from taking someone else's medicine and selling it.
There is no way for a company to survive other than to grow.
However, it is difficult to grow in the Korean market by competing with generic and improved new drugs.
There is no other way to survive than to develop new drugs and enter the global market.
It can be said that Korean pharmaceutical companies have now reached a point where they will have difficulty surviving without developing new drugs.

--- p.324 From “Interviewee O00”

They say that pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies also need to be desperate to develop new drugs.
But the word "urgency" in business can be abstract.
Patients and medical staff are in dire need of specific assistance.
Because a new drug must be developed to reduce suffering and save lives.
But that's not the case for pharmaceutical companies or biotechs developing new drugs.
Developing a new drug can have great rewards, but even without great rewards, it doesn't have to be painful or deadly.
Pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies can survive even if they can't develop new drugs.
But when a company walks into a market with a product, the need becomes concrete.
Although the risks of new drug development R&D are high, they are not so high that they can lead to ruin.
Even if you fall, you can do it again.
But the real risk comes when you go out into the market.
If you go to Phase 3 clinical trials, get approval, set up a sales organization, and spend money on marketing to enter the market, but fail, you could really fail.
I think the urgency of pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies may come from this point.

--- p.347-348 From “Interview with Hwang 00”

If the authority of each team and each researcher is not respected, the project team will not be able to function.
Even if it is a wrong decision, it becomes a difficult situation where you cannot help but follow that opinion.
In fact, these problems have emerged.
For now, we respected the opinion and proceeded as is.
This is what the project team leader or senior member says.
'I think your judgment is wrong, but let's respect your opinion and see it through to the end.
I'm not trying to shift the responsibility onto you.
'Let's try it first, and if it doesn't work out, let's find another way.' If the individual responsible person's opinion is correct, that's fine, but if it's wrong, no one is held responsible.
This will build trust in your team leader or seniors.
And naturally, you come to truly trust the opinions of your team leader and seniors.
You will overcome your own greed and become immersed in the success of your project.

--- p.366 From “Interviewee Park 00”

We may think we're doing well, but it may not look that way from the outside.
You could think the other way around.
You may misunderstand that you are doing something wrong when you are doing it right.
It takes a long time to develop new drugs.
So I'm really curious to know whether I'm doing well or not, but it's hard to know.
My personal opinion is that it won't be much different in the US.
I don't think even people in American pharmaceutical companies have a clear understanding of whether they are doing well or not.
So, we may not know if we are doing well right now.
It's just that a new drug at a global level hasn't been released yet, but it may be proven when we develop a new drug over time.

--- p.378 From “Interviewee 000”