“As an academic non-profit research institute [associated with Harvard and MIT], Broad recognizes the unique role that such institutions play in propelling the biomedical ecosystem by exploring fundamental questions and working on risky, early-stage projects that often lack clear economic return.
To maximize its impact, our work (including discoveries, data, tools, technologies, knowledge, and intellectual property) should be made readily available for use, at no cost, by other academic and non-profit research institutions….
With respect to commercial licensing, our most important consideration is maximizing public benefit.
In most cases, we believe that this goal is best accomplished through non-exclusive licensing, which allows many companies to use innovations and thus compete to bring to market products incorporating them.
In some cases, we recognize that an exclusive license to an innovation may be necessary to justify the level of private investment required to develop a product and bring it to market. (An example is the composition-of-matter of drug. Without an exclusive license, a company would be reluctant to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a clinical trial to demonstrate safety and efficacy, because competitors could subsequently ‘free-ride’ on their results to bring the same product to market.)
In each case, we evaluate the justification for exclusivity and seek to limit the scope of exclusivity….”
“The Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital becomes the first Open Science Institute in the world.
Open Science is a no-barrier approach to scientific research that is gaining ground within the academic community. Its principles are simple: allow research data and materials to move freely from one research team to another, between disciplines and toward the creation of innovative businesses….
MNI researchers will render all positive and negative numerical data, models used, data sources, reagents, algorithms, software and other scientific resources publicly available no later than the publication date of the first article that relies on this data or resource….
Subject to patient confidentiality and informed consent given, neither the MNI nor its researchers in their capacity as employees or consultants of the McGill- MNI unit will obtain patent protection or assert data protection rights in respect of any of their research….”
“Along with a number of leading Danish industrial companies, Aarhus University has opted out of the rat race in a new collaboration on industrially relevant basic research. Researchers and companies from all over Denmark publish all their results and data on the innovative Open Science platform, where the information is available free of charge to everyone interested….
The Open Science platform is thus the source of a number of paradigm shifts. It not only breaks away from the focus of universities on patenting their research discoveries, but also constitutes a conscious rebellion against the business models used by scientific journals….”
“Which successful company has benefited the most from basic science and technology, yet given the least back to it? The answer: Apple. It is so extreme, that the runners-up are not even close. Apple funds internal research galore, then locks it up, reportedly refusing to allow its own scientists to attend public and open research conferences. It does make some software open (sort of), but funds no accessible research to speak of that would help further the kind of basic computer science upon which others can build. You might think that such behavior is natural; how could Apple—or any company for that matter—be competitive otherwise? And yet there is a long history of precompetitive basic science that, for example, came from the likes of Bell Labs (like semi-conductors), later IBM, and more recently Microsoft. You cannot keep skimming the cream off the top, without doing some basic, open research that is widely shared. Open and shared are the key words….”
“Founded in 2010 by Virginie Simon, a biotech engineer and PhD in nanotechnology, and Tristan Davaille, a financial engineer with a degree in economics — MyScienceWork serves the international scientific community and the promotes easy access to scientific publications, unrestricted diffusion of knowledge and open science. Our comprehensive database includes more than 70 million scientific publications and 12 million patents.
We host a community of professional scientists and science enthusiasts from around the world who use MyScienceWork’s open network to deposit and discover scientific publications of all disciplines. Join the community!
For Research Institutions, Scientific Publishers & private-sector R&D companies, MyScienceWork provides a suite of data-driven solutions. Learn more about our products.
Our vision for the near future is to empower research institutions and industries with more intelligence related to research fields by aggregating all available data related to research results to accelerate findings, optimize funding and research efforts, improve transparency, bridge the knowledge gap between academia and industry and avoid duplicate research.
MySciencework believes that making science more accessible will foster data sharing amongst science organizations….”
“Why should universities continue to own and profit from publicly-funded work? If the public pays for it, why shouldn’t the public own it? … However, unlike governmental funding, the funds given by a private company to an academic researcher also come with an expectation of ownership. The trouble arises when the university is unwilling to fund the work but is also unwilling to cede ownership of the resulting invention. (As an aside, this is not unlike the longstanding debate on open access to scientific papers)….I can understand the institution retaining some claim on the IP alongside the public because they are providing the infrastructure to enable this work, which is effectively considered an extension of this work by their faculty. But when the university pulls back research funding entirely and expects financial support of “its own” scientists to come entirely from public grants or private contracts, and then “double dips” – detracting from these grants’ operating expenses to support the indirect costs of maintaining the research lab, then ownership of the resulting IP should pass to the funding parties….”
“The industry and government have spent many years collecting data, and now there is finally a tool [AI] to derive insight from it. The panel [at a House Oversight and Government Reform committee hearing Wednesday] agreed that open data policies are needed so the industry can begin making use of it, but it won’t be an easy process. Most of the government’s data is still unstructured and needs to be organized in a meaningful way.”
“Objectives To identify the policies of major pharmaceutical companies on transparency of trials, to extract structured data detailing each companies’ commitments, and to assess concordance with ethical and professional guidance….
Results Policies were highly variable. Of 23 companies eligible from the top 25 companies by revenue, 21 (91%) committed to register all trials and 22 (96%) committed to share summary results; however, policies commonly lacked timelines for disclosure, and trials on unlicensed medicines and off-label uses were only included in six (26%). 17 companies (74%) committed to share the summary results of past trials. The median start date for this commitment was 2005. 22 companies (96%) had a policy on sharing CSRs, mostly on request: two committed to share only synopses and only two policies included unlicensed treatments. 22 companies (96%) had a policy to share IPD; 14 included phase IV trials (one included trials on unlicensed medicines and off-label uses). Policies in the exploratory group of smaller companies made fewer transparency commitments. Two companies fell short of industry body commitments on registration, three on summary results. Examples of contradictory and ambiguous language were documented and summarised by theme. 23/42 companies (55%) responded to feedback; 7/1806 scored policy elements were revised in light of feedback from companies (0.4%). Several companies committed to changing policy; some made changes immediately.
Conclusions The commitments made by companies to transparency of trials were highly variable. Other than journal submission for all trials within 12 months, all elements of best practice were met by at least one company, showing that these commitments are realistic targets.”
“Shire plc (LSE: SHP, NASDAQ: SHPG), the global leader in rare diseases, has implemented a new publication policy requiring the submission of all Shire-supported research manuscripts to journals that offer public availability via open access, allowing the public to obtain free, unrestricted online access to Shire’s research promptly following publication. Shire’s open access policy, which went into effect on January 2, 2018, was announced today at the 2018 European Meeting of International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) taking place in London, UK, January 23-24….”