Que faut-il faire pour que la science soit plus ouverte? (What needs to be done to make science more open?)

From Google’s English: 

“Open science is the practice of making research publications and data freely available. It takes advantage of the digital transition to develop open access to publications and, to the fullest extent possible, to research data.”

WHO joins coalition for free digital access to health research

“Today, WHO announces it is the first of the United Nations agencies to join a coalition of research funders and charitable foundations (cOAlition S), an initiative to make full and immediate open access to research publications a reality.  cOAlition S is built around Plan S, which consists of 10 principles to ensure that the results from publicly-funded research, must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo. …”

Pursuing a new kind of “big deal” with publishers

“Making the transition from paying to read to paying to publish academic research won’t be easy for universities or publishers. But it is possible, attendees at an open-access-publishing event were told Thursday.

The University of California, which canceled its “big deal” with publisher Elsevier earlier this year after negotiations to establish a new agreement broke down, hosted a public forum discussing how libraries, publishers and funders can support a system where all research articles are made free to read at the time of publication….”

Publication and non-publication of clinical trials in PTSD: an overview | Research Integrity and Peer Review | Full Text

“This study underscores the importance of timely and accurate publication and dissemination of trial results, in order to avoid the potential waste of resources and to ensure research integrity and patient safety. We suggest that authors and journal editors adhere to conditions set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and that more diligent data sharing is encouraged through prospective trial registration and trial reporting websites….”

Why Should We Publish All Clinical Trials? – ScienceDirect

“Today, 1,100 of 3,400 (32%) of clinical trials have not been registered and are eligible for fines and penalties totaling millions dollars, yet there is no report of penalty collections to date under this new requirement (4).

What can we do better as journal editors in this capacity?

First, we should pose no barriers or penalties for investigators who publish the results on the Clinical Trials.gov website before publishing in the respected journal. Second, we should standardize the information and data required in the journal to be harmonized with the requirements of FDAAA 801.

Finally, we should actively solicit and facilitate trial publication of unpublished completed clinical trials….”

Open access policies of leading medical journals: a cross-sectional study | BMJ Open

Abstract:  

Objectives Academical and not-for-profit research funders are increasingly requiring that the research they fund must be published open access, with some insisting on publishing with a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to allow the broadest possible use. We aimed to clarify the open access variants provided by leading medical journals and record the availability of the CC BY licence for commercially funded research.

Methods We identified medical journals with a 2015 impact factor of ?15.0 on 24 May 2017, then excluded from the analysis journals that only publish review articles. Between 29 June 2017 and 26 July 2017, we collected information about each journal’s open access policies from their websites and/or by email contact. We contacted the journals by email again between 6 December 2017 and 2 January 2018 to confirm our findings.

Results Thirty-five medical journals publishing original research from 13 publishers were included in the analysis. All 35 journals offered some form of open access allowing articles to be free-to-read, either immediately on publication or after a delay of up to 12 months. Of these journals, 21 (60%) provided immediate open access with a CC BY licence under certain circumstances (eg, to specific research funders). Of these 21, 20 only offered a CC BY licence to authors funded by non-commercial organisations and one offered this option to any funder who required it.

Conclusions Most leading medical journals do not offer to authors reporting commercially funded research an open access licence that allows unrestricted sharing and adaptation of the published material. The journals’ policies are therefore not aligned with open access declarations and guidelines. Commercial research funders lag behind academical funders in the development of mandatory open access policies, and it is time for them to work with publishers to advance the dissemination of the research they fund.

Medicine needs to embrace open source | ZDNet

“I’m far from the only one to conclude that open-source methods are needed to break what amounts to broken pharmaceutical research methodology and drug price gougingOpen Source Pharma, an organization devoted to building on existing initiatives to develop an alternative, comprehensive, open-source pharmaceutical system, is leading the way.

Dr. Manica Balasegaram, executive director for the Access Campaign of Médecins Sans Frontières, aka Doctors Without Borders, explained:

There is something rotten in the kingdom of biomedical R&D . . . That the system is inefficient is probably difficult to dispute. It works in silos, encourages a protectionist, proprietary approach, promotes duplication, multiplies failure, is costly, and importantly, is directed at markets and not at public health needs. The consequences are fatal….

Open source can revolutionize our hunt for better, more affordable medicine. It has everywhere else. It can in medicine, too….”

Why Pfizer didn’t report that its rheumatoid arthritis medication might prevent Alzheimer’s – The Washington Post

A team of researchers inside Pfizer made a startling find in 2015: The company’s blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis therapy Enbrel, a powerful anti-inflammatory drug, appeared to reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease by 64 percent.

The results were from an analysis of hundreds of thousands of insurance claims. Verifying that the drug would actually have that effect in people would require a costly clinical trial — and after several years of internal discussion, Pfizer opted against further investigation and chose not to make the data public, the company confirmed.

Researchers in the company’s division of inflammation and immunology urged Pfizer to conduct a clinical trial on thousands of patients, which they estimated would cost $80 million, to see if the signal contained in the data was real, according to an internal company document obtained by The Washington Post….

Pfizer did share the data privately with at least one prominent scientist, but outside researchers contacted by The Post believe Pfizer also should at least have published its data, making the findings broadly available to researchers.

“Of course they should. Why not?’’ said Rudolph E. Tanzi, a leading Alzheimer’s researcher and professor at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. “It would benefit the scientific community to have that data out there,’’ said Keenan Walker, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins who is studying how inflammation contributes to Alzheimer’s. “Whether it was positive data or negative data, it gives us more information to make better informed decisions.’’ …

The broader market forces that critics say discouraged Pfizer from investing in Alzheimer’s clinical trials are rooted in Enbrel’s “life cycle,’’ the 20-year period of patent exclusivity when a brand manufacturer reaps monopoly profits from a drug. By industry standards, Enbrel, an injectable biologic drug, is relatively old, with FDA approval for rheumatoid arthritis in 1998….

A medical ethics expert argued that Pfizer has a responsibility to publicize positive findings, although it is not as strong as an imperative to disclose negative findings.

“Having acquired the knowledge, refusing to disclose it to those who might act upon it hides a potential benefit, and thereby wrongs and probably harms those at risk of developing Alzheimer’s by impeding research,’’ said Bobbie Farsides, professor of clinical and biomedical ethics at Brighton and Sussex Medical School in the United Kingdom….”

Affordable, life-saving medicines for all: McGill adopts Global Access Licensing Principles for research conducted on campus : Med e-News

McGill University, in conjunction with Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), has committed to increasing access to life-saving medicines by adopting Global Access Licensing Principles. McGill is the third Canadian university to adopt the principles, demonstrating a dedication to ensure that any research and university-developed technologies created on McGill’s campus with potential for further development into a drug, vaccine, or medical diagnostic are made affordable to all.

Global Access Licensing Framework (GALF), the framework used to inform aspects of McGill’s new principles, provides goals and strategies for research universities to follow in the licensing of medicines developed at the universities. The framework aims to prevent patenting practices and intellectual property policies from creating barriers to the life-saving results of publicly-funded research conducted in universities’ laboratories. GALF was created with the help of Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM), a non-profit, student advocacy organization with chapters at universities around the world…”

How a Wikipedia for drug discovery is disrupting big pharma

“But what if there was another way of developing the medicines we need? A way that eschews market incentives that stop pharma companies from developing medicines for diseases of poverty and does away with the secrecy that shrouds drug development.

According to advocates of open source pharma, there is….

Inspired by the open source movement in software, open drug discovery projects make their data and ideas available on the internet to anyone.

Matthew Todd, a professor of drug discovery at University College, London and one of the founders of the open source pharmamovement believes that open source could potentially transform the way we find cures….”