Doing science together: Gaining momentum from long-term explorative university-industry research programs.

'Doing science together' collaborations are a more intense form of university-industry interactions and are characterized by a mutual involvement and active participation of academic and company scientists in scientific research. Here, we examine the successful approach that AstraZeneca and its internationally renowned academic partners, Karolinska Institutet and Uppsala University, implemented to fully unlock the potential of all parties in long-term, explorative, truly collaborative research programs. The underlying premises of these successful research programs are three collaborative governance mechanisms (3MCs) that are required that leverage the strengths of each organization: mutual collaboration; mutually beneficial science; and a mutual governance model with senior management involvement.

Waiving intellectual property rights: Boom or bust for medical innovation?

Proposals to waive intellectual property rights (IPRs) on coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19)-related developments have gained considerable support among politicians, including from US President Biden, academics, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the media, and the general public. However, there are surprisingly few reflections about the short- and long-term consequences for medical innovation, particularly the development of new drugs and vaccines. In this feature, I reflect on the consequences for innovative entrepreneurial companies, the incentives to innovate, and consequences for international knowledge flows to low- and middle-income countries. I conclude that waiving IPRs reduces opportunities for entrepreneurial companies to attract sufficient funding for developing medical innovations. Low- and middle-income countries might suffer reduced knowledge inflows in the absence of IPRs that undermine their ability to develop medical innovations.

Did relaxing clinical trial regulation enhance the stock of scientific knowledge in India? Not necessarily.

The increasing amount of clinical research conducted outside the "traditional" countries raises questions about the benefits of hosting offshored clinical research. The extent to which trials contribute to the scientific knowledge base and, in particular, whether there are differences between different types of trials remain open questions. By examining a change in clinical trial regulations in India, a country often viewed as a first-choice offshoring location, we study how the relaxation of clinical trial regulations affects the number and the type of clinical trials as well as the domestic scientific knowledge base. Based on trial data from ClinicalTrials.gov and data on associated publication activities, our empirical analysis suggests that, despite an initial increase in the number of clinical trials, relaxing clinical trial regulations has a limited impact on the domestic scientific knowledge base. More specifically, the number of Indian researchers involved in the production of trial-related scientific knowledge remains modest. Furthermore, the potential to learn from the additional trials appears to be limited: the influx of phase 3 trials-mainly sponsored by Western-pharmaceutical firms-is accompanied by a lower likelihood that the trial results will be used in Indian researchers' subsequent research activities when compared to phase 3 trials with preceding phase 2 trials, as was required before the regulatory change. Overall, our results contradict expectations that relaxing the regulatory requirements for conducting late-stage clinical trials is an appropriate means of supporting the development of the domestic scientific knowledge base.