Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
One example is the industry program at the European Bioinformatics Institute
(EBI, www.ebi.ac.uk/industry/ind - prog - index.html ) where the 16 member
companies meet on a quarterly basis to discuss issues of relevance to bioin-
formatics [20]. Such fora have highlighted the need for more global standards
for data collection, annotation, and storage, which when agreed upon and
implemented would aid cross talk between projects and collaborations and
speed up data integration and analysis. Going forward ways of maintaining
data warehouses and other central resources will have to be found and new
funding mechanisms established to enable this.
Although there has been considerable progress made in this area, there still
appears to be a need for a cultural change among some academics and funders
to appreciate the different nature of the questions addressed by precompeti-
tive research collaborations. As with the IMI example, these are frequently
more applied questions than pure blue-sky research and as such may need to
be evaluated by different research criteria to those of the more normal, specu-
lative, basic research grant proposals. This does not mean that they should not
be underpinned by excellent science but rather that the other criteria for
funding may be different. The need for real collaboration between the phar-
maceutical company partners and others also means that the more traditional
view of pharmaceutical companies as a source of funds must change [17].
Although some precompetitive collaborations have clearly delivered on
their objectives for all stakeholders (e.g., the Dundee Kinase Consortium, the
SGC, and the Serious Adverse Events Consortium [SAEC]), others have not
been in place for long enough to have delivered signifi cant value. In light of
this, there remains the threat that such collaborations will not be able to
deliver value in a time frame that will ensure their survival.
4.4
FUTURE TRENDS
There is no doubt that the drivers that stimulated precompetitive initiatives
will continue to be a key feature of the industry. Whether precompetitive
collaborations increase or whether some other forms of collaboration shown
in Table 4.1, such as open innovation [21] or more open access models [22],
come more to the fore will depend on several factors. One of the most impor-
tant questions is where the boundaries of precompetitive activity will be
drawn in the future. Given the defi nition proposed by Woodcock at the start
of this chapter, precompetitive research has hitherto been focused mostly on
tools and technologies, but if we draw the precompetitive boundary after
target identifi cation and validation, this could stimulate more collaborations
at this critical stage of drug discovery and development. This in turn could
allow the industry to more rapidly identify which targets are the most suitable
for drug discovery and development efforts and hence improve effi ciency and
reduce unnecessary duplication and cost. Such an approach has been advo-
cated by Barnes et al. [20], who argue that this could provide precompetitive
Search WWH ::
Custom Search