MODELS FOR COLLABORATIONS AND COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY - Collaborative Computational Technologies for Biomedical Research - page 52

stakeholders learn more about how these structures can provide “value-added”
benefi ts for their own personal mission—and continue to see demonstrations
of the success of research consortia—the interest in and acceptance of large-
scale partnerships should continue to grow.
As with any successful partnership, there must be a “meeting of the minds,”
or at the very least a clear understanding of: Why each partner is involved.
What each partner looks to get out of the collaboration. What policies and
procedures must be in place to assure that each partner's mission and goals
are achieved through the partnership's activities.
Like other areas of biomedical research, the fi eld of computational biology
has much to benefi t from breaking out of the traditional model of collabora-
tion and exploring the possibilities that large-scale collaborations can provide
each stakeholder.
REFERENCES
1. Adams CP , Brantner VV . Estimating the cost of new drug development: Is it really
$802 million? Health Affairs 2006 ; 25 ( 2 ): 420 - 428 .
2. Dictionary.com ' s 21st century lexicon. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com/
browse/precompetitive .
3. Vargas G , Boutouyrie B , Ostrowitzki S , Santarelli L . Arguments against precompeti-
tive collaboration. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010 ; 87 ( 5 ): 527 - 529 .
4. Wagner JA , et al. The Biomarkers Consortium: Practice and pitfalls of open - source
precompetitive collaboration. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010 ; 87 ( 5 ): 539 - 542 .
5. Food and Drug Administration . Critical path opportunities report and list . http://
www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/reports/opp_list.pdf . 3 - 16 - 2006.
6. Woodcock J , Woosley R . The FDA Critical Path Initiative and its infl uence on new
drug development. Annu Rev Med 2008 ; 59 : 1 - 12 .
7. Mayrand - Chung S . The Biomarkers Consortium: Advancing biomarkers research .
Paper presented at Pharma Focus Asia 2009;9. Available at: http://www.
pharmafocusasia.com/clinical_trials/biomarkers_consortium_advancing_research.
htm .
8. Brazma A , et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME) —
Toward standards for microarray data. Nat Genet 2001 ; 29 ( 4 ): 365 - 371 .
9. Cornet R , de Keizer N . Forty years of SNOMED: A literature review . BMC Med
Inform Decis Mak 2008 ; 8 ( Suppl 1 ): S2 .
10. Martens L , Orchard S , Apweiler R , Hermjakob H . Human Proteome Organization
Proteomics Standards Initiative: Data standardization, a view on developments and
policy . Mol Cell Proteom 2007 ; 6 ( 9 ): 1666 - 1667 .
11. Orchard S , et al. Entering the implementation era: A report on the HUPO - PSI
Fall workshop 25-27 September 2006, Washington DC, USA. Proteomics 2007 ;
7 ( 3 ): 337 - 339 .
12. Taylor CF , et al. The minimum information about a proteomics experiment
(MIAPE). Nat Biotechnol 2007 ; 25 ( 8 ): 887 - 893 .