Dr. Jordan L. Cohen
Dean, University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy

Jordan L. Cohen has been professor and dean of the University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy since January 1988. A native of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Dr. Cohen received his B.S. in pharmacy in 1965 and Ph.D. in pharmaceutics in 1969 from the University of Wisconsin in Madison. In 1985-86, Dr. Cohen was selected as an American Council on Education Fellow, during which time he served as assistant to the chancellor at the University of California at Irvine. Dr. Cohen is heavily involved in the establishment in Kentucky of a statewide coalition to promote the development of pharmaceutical care, and he served as a member of the task force which successfully revised the Pharmacy Practice Act in Kentucky.

The College of Pharmacy also is one of only three academic institutions that have an FDA approved pilot production in manufacturing facility. Its UK Center for Pharmaceutical Science and Technology can perform human clinical testing of drug/biological products and drug delivery systems. How and when did the UKCP get involved with the high tech process of testing pharmaceutical products?

Research at UK goes back to the early days. One of the UKCP's early strengths was that its facilities were a good fit with the research and development projects from the pharmaceutical industry. In the mid-eighties, Governor Wallace Wilkinson issued a call for "Centers of Excellence" designation. One that was designated by the University of Kentucky was The Center for Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technology (CPST). State dollars were infused into CPST and a 5,000 square foot building was developed. This facility achieved FDA approval for manufacturing for pilot production for dosage forms for clinical trials. The beginning of clinical trials was during the late '80s and early '90s.

How many employees are involved in the testing process at UKCP?

The facility accommodates research from a variety of faculty. Six to ten people will be associated with it when it is conducting tests for a company. Two of the employees are usually faculty and the other are highly trained staff familiar with FDA protocols and guidelines for evaluation and production.

Will some of the persons working on a particular test visit Lexington for an extended period or do they actually live here?

Both. Some are full time employees who maintain the facility according to all of the FDA requirements. They also do continuous analytical, production, or other activities. Typically the work that they do is early stage pilot development and it is not uncommon for the companies to send a scientist to our facility. The concept is called "Man in the Plant." Actually, the scientist comes and works in facility. Partly that is for the company's protection of their proprietary interest; partly to oversee the project. Sometimes CPST manages all of the services for companies that just send the product for testing. They say, "produce this product by this method."

Describe a few representative firms that utilize CPST to conduct their testing.

Over the years, we've worked with most of the major pharmaceutical companies that would be household names. I would suggest that the real value of this facility and its future research and expansion capabilities has to do with our ability to work with smaller specialized companies that don't have large research facilities of their own.

If successfully expanded how might this type of high technology business impact Central Kentucky?

First of all this program should exist with enhanced capabilities -- probably at an "arms length" relation from the University. It could be a for-profit entity of the University or in some way partner with a for-profit entity. The facility would generate revenue, ultimately pay its own expenses, and provide opportunities for the community to link with the industry. Relationships with the industry to bring more and more research projects. Ultimately, some of these small companies (who don't have facilities to do R & D) as they become successful could develop their own research facilities on our research campus. That is exactly what happened with the biotech industry in Silicon Valley, San Diego and Boston. High tech businesses tend to go where the university environment is very fertile.

Based on your experience what has seemed to be major objections for companies not to move their facilities to Coldstream Research Park?

I don't know that you can identify just one reason. The College of Pharmacy has generally been able to interest smaller and even sometimes larger technology based companies in taking a look at Lexington. Coldstream offers the right things -- the University, a clean environment, an educated work force, fair land prices -- all of those things. The routine is that the company will narrow it down to about five cities. Central Kentucky can almost always get into the final five. Then our competitors go beyond what Central Kentucky can offer. Competitors can offer better tax incentives, or a variety of existing facilities or infrastructure. This tends to raise the confidence and interest of the company's management in our competitors.

Is there any one group or any one individual that has more or less been a champion of the cause -- pro-active in leading the way?

At the University of Kentucky, certainly Ed Carter has been an advocate. He and I continue to view this model as an appropriate one and we've gotten more and more excited about it as we visited other cities with successful programs. Bob Douglas, president of the Lexington Chamber, has been a strong supporter. After the Chamber's Madison trip, five banks agreed to help guarantee a loan to construct a second lab/office complex building at Coldstream. The Cabinet for Economic Development in Frankfort has been helpful. They are aware of the project; they've been with us on recruiting trips and vise versa. The other important thing to recognize is that the competition for the kinds of companies that we're talking about is extremely keen. The university and the College of Pharmacy help attract companies, but it really takes an extraordinary combined community effort to be successful in recruiting higher technology companies.

Please comment briefly on how these factors might impact development of pharmaceutical testing in Central Kentucky:

Real estate facilities:

Coldstream has to develop some leasable incubator space for small companies to get started. The incubator companies can't construct the building. Many of these companies have good ideas and funding for a year or two, but they are not really bankable, so the question is where is the long-term guarantee of the rent.

Technical workforce:

High tech companies want to hire people trained at both the B.S. and Ph.D level. The College can produce these people.

Promotion efforts:

Lots of spending on promotion is not necessary because the University of Kentucky is well known.

Air/ground transportation:

Both are critical. Companies have concerns that BlueGrass Airport isn't a hub and there has to be change of planes. This was especially relative to companies with overseas operations.

You have served as dean of the UKCP since 1988 and announced recently that you would become the dean at the University of Iowa. Why did you decide to leave UK?

I think you reach a point in your career where you evaluate what you have accomplished, both personal as well as professional. I feel very good about what we've accomplished here. Moving to Iowa is an opportunity to be involved in a very forward thinking university.

If someone said they were going to give the College of Pharmacy all the money it needs to excelerate the development of this program, how much would be required?

To get the kind of testing facility that would become the magnet for the Coldstream Development, we have estimated the cost to be in the range of $15 million. That facility would be a larger version of the facility we now have in the UKCP Building.

Ed G. Lane is chief executive of Lane Consultants, Inc. and publisher of The Lane Report.

Back to January Issue

Back to One-on-One Index

Copyright 1996-98, by Kentucky Business Online, LLC.  All rights reserved.

Editorial content is copyright 1998, Lane Communications Group
All editorial materials is fully protected and must not be reproduced in any manner without prior permission. 

Buzzword and the Buzzword balloon are registered trademarks of Buzzword, Inc.  The Lane Report is a trademark of Lane Communications Group.  All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.