The Soul of Biotech

Recently, a couple more links crossed my virtual desk. You probably know websites like Match and eHarmony for singles dating. These websites usually try to help singles match up based on personality profiles and other self-reported biographical data.

Now we’ve got ScientificMatch and GenePartner, which from the names I initially thought might be for bioengineers looking for a mate. Instead, it’s for mate-seekers looking to do a little bioengineering. Both sites include normal biographical questions about prospective mates, such as values and physical preferences. But on top of that, both sites use cheek swabs to collect DNA samples as well to provide a new dimension of mate compatibility. The theory underlying both websites is that of diversifying immune systems: that is, because we don’t all have the same immune system pieces, we seek mates who have as different immune systems as we do, in order to produce children with the best chance of survival across a wide variety of types of illness.

I admit, I’m curious to try it. Having skimmed the articles involved, the research appears not only sound, but also detailed enough to have discovered confounding factors, such as being raised away from one’s parents at an early age, or taking birth control. If I do try it, I’ll post here and let you know what happens.

Hat tip to ScienceRoll.

I’ve been thinking about non-personal promotion a bit more since my previous post on Novartis’ FluFlix contest.

A casual search of Facebook for the top ten best-selling pharmaceutical brands of 2006 reveals that social groups already exist for most:

1. Lipitor
2. Advair
3. Plavix
4. Nexium
5. Norvasc
6. Remicade
7. Enbrel
8. Zyprexa
9. Diovan
10. Risperdal

Primarily, these groups seem to provide an opportunity for support and treatment discussion among patients across the world. So far, no promotional messages are visible other than those along the lines of “Yeah, I take this drug and it works for me.” But it’s not a stretch to imagine pharmaceutical brand teams eventually getting involved in order to inform patients and, of course, promote product.

In fact, it has already started. Take a closer look at the Norvasc group above. Of the links above, only the Norvasc group was not, as far as I can tell, started by patients. It was actually started by some students as part of a pharmaceutical marketing project! I guess I’m not the only one who thought of this.

The number of people in any of these groups isn’t very big yet. Most contain fewer than 100 members. That’s not surprising, because most people taking these medications are older, and Facebook users are, well, not. But what happens when that 13-28 set currently dominating Facebook and other social media sites begin running brand teams in 5-10 years? Or what happens when enough users get to the point where they too require all these medications? And which pharmaceutical company will be first to untangle the regulatory hassle that creating a social media pharmaceutical promotion could entail?