4.7 Review

Insecticide discovery: An evaluation and analysis

Journal

PESTICIDE BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 107, Issue 1, Pages 8-17

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2013.05.012

Keywords

Development costs; Pesticide discovery - time needed; Vertebrate selectivity ratio; Screening success; Insecticide resistance management

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is an on-going need for the discovery and development of new insecticides due to the loss of existing products through the development of resistance, the desire for products with more favorable environmental and toxicological profiles, shifting pest spectrums, and changing agricultural practices. Since 1960, the number of research-based companies in the US and Europe involved in the discovery of new insecticidal chemistries has been declining. In part this is a reflection of the increasing costs of the discovery and development of new pesticides. Likewise, the number of compounds that need to be screened for every product developed has, until recently, been climbing. In the past two decades the agrochemical industry has been able to develop a range of new products that have more favorable mammalian vs. insect selectivity. This review provides an analysis of the time required for the discovery, or more correctly the building process, for a wide range of insecticides developed during the last 60 years. An examination of the data around the time requirements for the discovery of products based on external patents, prior internal products, or entirely new chemistry provides some unexpected observations. In light of the increasing costs of discovery and development, coupled with fewer companies willing or able to make the investment, insecticide resistance management takes on greater importance as a means to preserve existing and new insecticides. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available