Sorry but forgotten more than I can recall... It was too long...

Sorry but forgotten more than I can recall...
It was too long ago for me to remember but I was involved in clinical stuff for an breast cancer drug (didn't get much further as I changed careers). And with that particular drug - it was a collab effort between an uni and a private hospital. From what I remember (and I don't remember much) - the sequence of events was:
1 - independent guys developed drug (nascent stages...as in - this SHOULD work theoretically) - I say "independent" but have a feeling there was a close association with the uni (stupid hazy memory and decaf coffee this morning)
2 - uni was approached to further develop the drug all the way from basic tissue baths to full-blown clinical trials
3 - "pharmacology and drug evaluation" crew at the uni took a peek and saw efficacy in the drug so greenlit further investigation/tweaking - started fiddling with different analogs and the such. (this bit is very different to RAP: if I can make an analogy - pharmacology is like different keys going into different locks where as RAP is more like a motion sensor or IR camera. Hope that makes sense - happy to elaborate further if you guys get bored during the day and want to read the barely relevant rantings of samcro)
4 - uni was only able to carry the project up to a stage before coordinating its efforts with a hospital (obviously that's how you open the door to clinical trials on hooooomans)
5 - three-way collab effort saw drug enter human trials - results were positive - drug was put onto PBS and now in common use.

I know it's not exactly what you were asking buddy - but yeah - the hospital obviously relied on academic research and opinion to govern it's decision to allow trials in this particular case. I can say though that the biologically relevant data the hospital received from the uni would have be: rats, sheep and MAYBE some primate results but definitely no human data.