“Open Therapeutics™ facilitates and enables collaboration among life science researchers around the world!
There are highly qualified scientists everywhere. They want to collaborate. However, there is no comprehensive platform for them to do so – until now!
The Open Therapeutics’ Therapoid™ scientific ecosystem enables much more than just collaboration.
As a web platform for scientific collaboration Therapoid includes:
Open biotechnologies for advancing research and gaining publications,
Funding to further develop open biotechnologies,
An asset exchange that hosts freely available equipment and supplies,
A manuscript development process,
A preprint server for hosting manuscripts.
Goals of Open Therapeutics’ include lowering biotechnology and pharmaceutical costs, reducing the risks and time to develop life-saving therapies, and broadening markets for therapeutics, particularly for underserved populations around the world.”
“Open Therapeutics™ facilitates biopharma developments by enabling capable and responsible researchers around the world to collaborate. Open Therapeutics has two components: (i) an open web platform for scientific collaboration known as Therapoid™, and (ii) open biotechnologies for rapid prototyping of therapeutics.
Open Therapeutics™ enables open access, open collaboration, rapid prototyping, meritocracy, and community. The goal is to lower costs, reduce risks and time, and broaden markets for therapeutics.
The Therapoid™ web portal enables international scientists to share research easily, while it also opens a path to develop dormant technologies. Simple to use tools enable more effective collaboration. The combination of collaboration and biotechnologies will lead to better therapeutics for patients in every country….”
“We’re a team of Bay Area biology nerds who believe that insulin should be freely available to anybody who needs it. So, we’re developing the first freely available, open protocol for insulin production. We hope our research will be the basis for generic production of this life-saving drug. Additionally, we hope our work inspires other biohackers to band together and create things nobody has ever thought of before!…”
“In tumultuous times, it is easy to miss the fact that science is undergoing a quiet revolution. For several years now, concerns have been peaking in biomedicine about the reliability of published research – that the results of too many studies cannot be reproduced when the methods are repeated. Alongside growing discontent, the scientific community has answered by driving forward a raft of open science reforms. From initiatives to making research data publicly available, to ensuring that all published research can be read by the public, the aim of these reforms is simple: to make science more credible and accessible, for the benefit of other scientists and the public who fund scientific research.”
“Although the creation of new chemical entities has always been considered the realm of patents, I think that it is time for change. Novel chemical tools, most of which will not have drug?like properties, are too valuable to be restricted; they will be of far greater benefit to research if freely available without restrictions on their use. Chemical biologists would benefit from the many advantages that the open consortium model brings: rapid access to research tools; less bureaucratic workload to enter legal agreements; the ability to work with the best people through collaborations focused on the publication of results; and freedom to operate for companies, harnessing the synergies between academic freedom and industrial approaches to systematically tackle a scientific challenge. My call for open?access chemistry public–private partnerships might sound impractical, but pilot projects are already underway….The SGC is a one example of an open public–private partnership. It was created as a legal charity in 2004 to determine the three?dimensional high?resolution structures of medically important proteins. As an open consortium, the resulting structures are placed in the public domain without restriction on their use. The SGC was conceived nearly ten years ago, based on the conviction that high?quality structural information is of tremendous value in promoting drug discovery and a belief that patenting protein structures could limit the freedom to operate for academic and industrial organizations….Although it is clear that open?access chemistry is in the best interests of society, the challenge is the cost. My arguments can be defended on the macroeconomic level, but costs for assay development and for chemical screening and synthesis are incurred locally, by the institutions and from the public purse. Free release of chemical probes by academia would ultimately benefit the pharmaceutical industry and society, but the possibilities for royalty and license payments for universities would decrease. One solution is to explore models in which both the public and private sectors contribute up?front in return for unrestricted access to the results and compounds, as in the SGC. It should also be noted that an open?access model is not in conflict with the aim to commercialize, at least not in the long term. It could be argued that experience built around specific biological systems would allow commercial development at a later stage if findings by the community indicate that a particular protein or pathway is a valid target. A chemical biology centre with such experience would be in an ideal position to develop new chemistry and launch a proprietary programme….“
“Drug discovery resources in academia and industry are not used efficiently, to the detriment of industry and society. Duplication could be reduced, and productivity could be increased, by performing basic biology and clinical proofs of concept within open access industry-academia partnerships. Chemical biologists could play a central role in this effort….In summary, the development of new medicines is being hindered by the way in which academia and industry advance innovative targets. By generating freely available chemical and clinical probes and performing open-access science, the overall system will produce a wider range of clinically validated targets for the same total resource. This is arguably the most effective way to spur the development of treatments for unmet needs.”
“The drug discovery process is losing productivity to the detriment of the global economy and human health. The greatest productivity gains in the sector can be achieved by solving the fundamental scientific problems limiting the progression of compounds through clinical trials. These problems must be addressed through a combination of ‘blue sky’ and targeted research on priority issues, perhaps defined within a ‘grand challenges’ framework. For many reasons, targeted research should be performed in PPPs [public–private partnerships] that release information into the public domain immediately, with no restriction on use.”
“The Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC; http://www.thesgconline.org/) is a public-private partnership that places the three-dimensional structures of proteins of relevance to human health into the public domain without restriction on use. Over the past 3 years, the SGC has deposited the structures of more than 550 proteins from its Target List (http://www.thesgconline.org/structures/about.php) into the Protein DataBank (PDB); this accounts for about one-quarter of the new structures of human proteins in the PDB over this period (‘new’ is defined as <95% sequence identity to proteins whose structures were already available in the PDB) and the majority of the new structures from the human parasites that cause malaria, cryptosporidiosis and toxoplasmosis. Over the next 4 years, the SGC is committing to determining the structures of another 600 proteins from its Target List, including eight human integral membrane proteins.
The SGC has been releasing the coordinates for all the SGC structures into the PDB immediately after they meet the SGC quality criteria (http://www.thesgconline.org/structures/sgc_structure_criteria.php), even if the ultimate intention is to describe the work in the peer-reviewed literature. This data release policy, which has often meant that coordinates were available for several months before the manuscript was even written, has not limited the ability of our scientists to publish….”
“The SGC is engaged in pre-competitive research to facilitate the discovery of new medicines. As part of its mission the SGC is generating reagents and knowledge related to human proteins and proteins from human parasites. The SGC believes that its output will have maximal benefit if released into the public domain without restriction on use, and thus has adopted the following Open Access policy.
The SGC and its scientists are committed to making their research outputs (materials and knowledge) available without restriction on use. This means that the SGC will promptly place its results in the public domain and will not agree to file for patent protection on any of its research outputs. It will seek the same commitment from any research collaborator….”
The decision to make protocols of phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) publicly accessible by leading journals was a landmark event in clinical trial reporting. Here we compared primary outcomes defined in protocols with those in publications describing the trials, and in trial registration.
Study design and setting
We identified phase III RCTs published between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2015 in The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association and The BMJ with available protocols. Consistency in primary outcomes between protocols and registries (articles) were evaluated.
We identified 299 phase III RCTs with available protocols in this analysis. Out of them, 25(8.4%) trials had some discrepancy for primary outcomes between publications and protocols. Types of discrepancies included protocol-defined primary outcome reported as non-primary outcome in publication (11 trials, 3.7%), protocol-defined primary outcome omitted in publication (10 trials, 3.3%), new primary outcome introduced in publication (8 trials, 2.7%), protocol-defined non-primary outcome reported as primary outcome in publication (4 trials, 1.3%) and different timing of assessment of primary outcome (4 trials, 1.3%). Out of trials with discrepancies in primary outcome, 15 trials (60.0%) had discrepancies that favored statistically significant results. Registration could be seen as a valid surrogate of protocol in 237 of 299 trials (79.3%) with regard to primary outcome.
Despite unrestricted public access to protocols, selective outcome reporting persists in a small fraction of phase III RCTs. Only studies from four leading journals were included, which may cause selection bias and limit the generalizability of this finding.