This is an excellent, well-thought-out blog piece, from Mr. Herper. Do go read it all -- but I'll give you a taste:
. . . .It may be that companies' tendency to keep their research under wraps is holding them back. Secrecy leads companies to race down the same blind alleys, to miss opportunities and to understand biology less than they otherwise might.
Now former executives from companies including Merck and Genentech are pushing to open up many stages of drug development, from basic science to human research, in the hopes of ending this drought. . . .
[I]n biological research, he argues, there is increasing evidence of "the absurdity of how data is not shared." He adds: "It's not just industry, it's academia. If patients ever came to an understanding of how people do not share data in academia, they would revolt. . . ."
Do go read it all, at Forbes. These efforts represent small -- but encouraging -- first steps.
2 comments:
Do go check with Ed on Pharmalot. At least 2 relevant articles about intellectual property and the complications there-of.
One of several problems with sharing of biological data between companies.
I did read those, in real time.
As I understand it, at least one of the envisioned schemes would involve "anonymized" disclosures.
There would be a central data bank, and it would house a deep dive of the data, stripped of author/inestigator (think clinicaltrials.gov, only on steriods, HGH and burning NiOx fuel!). . . .
That path may lead to some different problems, but I do not think -- with all due respect -- the exact problems we've all read about will be a gating variable, should this new approach be used.
Does your mileage vary?
Namaste -- do stop back.
Post a Comment