Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
4.3.3
Potential obstacles to precompetitive collaboration
Vargas et al. [17] have recently outlined some of the challenges to precompeti-
tive collaboration, including defi nitions and standards, organizational com-
plexity, and IP. In the case of IP they rightly point out that many of the issues
around data sharing are with data collected in the past and that these should
be reduced by basing precompetitive collaborations on prospectively designed
experiments. They conclude that “it is good to see that PPPs have successfully
formed and seem to have successfully tackled IP challenges.” However, it will
be interesting to see whether the IP issues will become more signifi cant and
precompetitive efforts seek to access tool compounds or share information
around novel targets. Already the deposition of the compounds in the Pool for
Open Innovation against Neglected Tropical Diseases has caused some com-
ments that these compounds are not “druglike,” as claimed by GSK [18]. This
highlights the need for very clear communication about the value and nature
of what is being shared as any perceived lack of transparency could easily
create a negative impression for the consortia.
Decreasing size of pharmaceutical R&D is also a challenge—this may seem
paradoxical as this should be an impetus to precompetitive data sharing.
However, as companies shrink their internal R&D efforts, their R&D employ-
ees may be increasingly reluctant to become more externally facing as they
feel the need to focus more on maintaining their internal impact. This is why
it is important, if external collaboration is seen as a strategic imperative, to
reward and recognize those individuals playing signifi cant roles in precompeti-
tive efforts. Additionally, if the personnel responsible for initiating and leading
the precompetitive consortia then leave a company, it is important to ensure
a suitable replacement it found. This reinforces the need for senior-level
endorsement and support of the project as mentioned above. There is also the
potential for confl ict more generally in terms of the way large pharmaceutical
companies are organized—while there has been a growing acceptance of net-
worked R&D models in the industry, networks alone cannot increase innova-
tion [19]. There still needs to be a signifi cant cultural shift at all levels (especially
in the more traditional middle management strata) within most pharmaceuti-
cal companies to take full advantage of new, precompetitive ways of working.
A further potential obstacle is a lack of coordination globally between
funders, researchers, and companies on precompetitive funding initiatives.
Although current PPPs such as the Biomarkers Consortium and the IMI have
begun to communicate and coordinate activities, there still remains a lot of
potential overlap across all the PPP space. In addition, it is key that industry
agrees where it needs to focus resources and efforts in the precompetitive
arena. In that respect the EFPIA Research Directors Group has made con-
siderable progress, but this is primarily focused around research based in
Europe and really needs to be extended globally and to ensure that companies
not part of the EFPIA are brought into the debate. There are other fora where
industrial partners work together strategically in the precompetitive arena.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search