“The starting point will be approximately 1,000 human kinase inhibitors carefully selected from a library of chemical compounds donated to the partnership from eight pharmaceutical companies. The set will be distributed without restriction to scientists studying other plants and traits, thus serving as a broadly useful platform. The team has agreed to operate under open access principles —specifically prohibiting filing for IP on any of the results and will communicate the results widely….”
Abstract: The contemporary approach to innovation in the life sciences relies on a patent-based proprietary model. Limitations on patent rights and business concerns often focus innovation to markets where the near-term monetary rewards are highest. This is “efficient” under an austere understanding of the term, but the proprietary model can be problematic from a practical perspective because it may not focus innovation to certain deserving markets. This Article contends that the property rights conferred by patent law may still serve as a positive base for innovation directed to underserved markets. The comparatively strong rights conferred by patent law provide upstream or pioneering innovators the power to establish some of the environmental conditions in which subsequent innovation takes place. This includes a power to create an environment of relatively open access to rights, which in appropriate cases may foster efficiency gains, reduce innovation suppressive costs, and achieve production for ultimate consumers at closer to marginal cost. In several parts, this paper discusses the topography of law and innovation in the life sciences, the characteristics of innovation in the life sciences that may support the use of patents to impose an “open science” framework, a legal means of imposing such a framework using servitudes, and some of the legal and economic implications of using patents in this manner. This Article concludes that there are reasons why universities and research-oriented medical schools should sometimes favor this approach and that limited testing should be performed to determine the efficacy of the approach.
“When Dr. Atul Butte thinks data, the word “big” can’t do it justice. He was honored by President Barack Obama’s administration as an “open science champion of change” in 2013 for his work at Stanford University to sift 400 trillion molecular, clinical, and epidemiological data points to find new medicines and disease-fighting insights — and to speed the process by making the data as public as possible.”
“An unprecedented study of 6 million pieces of data claims to shows that the knowledge framework underpinning UK construction is not fit for purpose.
As the industry reels from the deadly Grenfell Tower fire, the study’s authors warn that practitioners do not have ready access to critical knowledge and that more mistakes are “inevitable”.
Designing Buildings Wiki, an open knowledge base, says it has undertaken the first comprehensive mapping of construction industry knowledge.
It published what it calls the “startling results” in a report this week, which found that:
Too much essential knowledge is difficult to understand, buried in long documents or locked behind pay walls and will not be used.
Practitioners need accessible, practical, easy-to-use guidance to help them carry out everyday activities.
The industry lacks the strategic leadership needed to coordinate the creation and dissemination of knowledge.
The internet has fundamentally changed the way practitioners access knowledge, but the industry has not kept up….”
“ReportLinker Data is a search engine for statistics that gives easy access to more than 30 million bits of actionable data….Our ontology-aware natural language processing (NLP) platform automatically analyses millions of bits of data every day. We use big data algorithms to discover, disambiguate, and normalize complex concepts to create structured knowledge of industries, companies, and technologies….ReportLinker Data’s ground breaking technology helps our customers find datasets and key industry indicators from the best open data sources in one single place. All datasets are selected, filtered, and updated daily by our analysts….”
“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.”
From Google’s English: “But something always strikes me in these Open Science models: they leave aside an essential dimension of the research process (at least in some disciplines), namely the question of the management of rights over inventions and deposition of patents. It is as if Open Science always stops at the gates of industrial property and the question of the openness and free re-use of inventions remains a kind of taboo….”
“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….“