Open Innovation in Science and health Panel Discussion @ NESTA Open Innovation Workshop

Again live blogged….and hence public notes of the meeting…

Open Innovation in Science and health Panel Discussion

===Panel Membership===
Prof Sir John Sulston
Dr Davd Brown
John Wilbanks
Dr Adams heathfield (Pfizer– Director of Science Policy)

===Member Statements===

David Brown
Three anrena for science commons
Academia
Non-Proft
For Profit

The Global health Field is the low hanging fruit for open innovation
Used to be Head of Research for Roche
Had Analysis why resarch failed
poor target validation
poor quality chemical leads
poor toxicity
poor clinical trials
All of those can be addressed by information sharing
Tox Databases need to be shared – non sharing leads to death of phrama industry

6 Million under 5s die of preventable diseases if we apply ourselves properly – we have the technology
Only 300 people dealing with this problem worldwide…..all of them in Switzerland and US – none of the UK people involved in this….use science commons to get information sharing and therefore participation in these diseases
Cultural Barriers is one reason for non-participation….need to enable the commons to help the scientists in these countries to work on these diseases

John Sulston
UK Citizens are demanding too much innovation
No harm in consumer goods etc, though the increasing consumer market is a bad thing….but more serious in health….rather give people drugs than counselling them
Human Genome Project was constructed as an Open Structure to make resulting data available – the open databases have been infectious for setting standards
Dismay at the horrendous drive at inequality in medicine motivated by greed
needs to neglect of preventable diseases and focus on pointless new innovations
Can the Commons be used to benefit the many or only the few?
Asks NESTA to temper its ambition to create wealth with making this country take part in global share responsibility

John Wilbanks
The COmmons allows the many vs the few – there is no limitation on who uses the commons
Therefore design for aggregation of CONTENT by anyone

Adam Heathfield
Pfizer is no 1 or 2 in global pharma
7 billion dollars on R&D Alzheimers/Oncology
Commons can help in drug R&D
Drug R&D is under more and mor pressure to provide more and more DATA
Regulation
Marketin
Tracking
Difficult to see how to use the Commons approach to tackle the challenges that pharma is having
HOWEVER
CC can be used on screening approaches, trial design etc….COMMONS in the precompetitive stage
need more experiments how to collaborate and how to compete
NO of industry collaborations are going up: 3-fold at Pfizer

===Questions===

1. Clinical Trial(shared) Data Mining and Sharing…has that any influence? Clinical Trials.gov…..Pfizer sees this as opening up new possibilities but more research needed
not sure whether the info is used in a way the info is useful
Issues with consent governanace and clinical study data sharing
Overall Adam Heathfield is very sceptical overalll with commons approaches in live science..

2. Glyn Moody Prizes for Developing Drugs with Results being in public domain?
Brown: for western dieseases the money is there and these models not neeeded…just need better data sharing
for rarer diseases
Wilbanks: use Commons for Drug R&D in precompetityve biology
Brown: Drug Discovery cannot be done in Academia – not enough experience, too difficult
Sulston: Sure about that? Is it just a function of availability of money and some re-tooling?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: