Exploring regulatory flexibility to create novel incentives to optimize drug discovery.

Efforts by governments, firms, and patients to deliver pioneering drugs for critical health needs face a challenge of diminishing efficiency in developing those medicines. While multi-sectoral collaborations involving firms, researchers, patients, and policymakers are widely recognized as crucial for countering this decline, existing incentives to engage in drug development predominantly target drug manufacturers and thereby do little to stimulate collaborative innovation. In this mini review, we consider the unexplored potential within pharmaceutical regulations to create novel incentives to encourage a diverse set of actors from the public and private spheres to engage in the kind of collaborative knowledge exchange requisite for fostering enhanced innovation in early drug development.

University Technology Transfer Has Failed to Improve Access to Global Health Products during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Publicly funded research has contributed enormously to many products that were developed in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet universities' technology transfer practices have failed to ensure that these products are available in low- and middle-income settings. Drawing upon the example of the lipid nanoparticle delivery technology - which was developed in and around the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, and incorporated into the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine - we show the divide between the university's stated principles to serve global health and technology transfer in practice. We outline three policy actions to realign universities' technology transfer practices in the service of global health.

Authors' Response - A Status Quo of Failure: Time to Fix University Technology Transfer to Address Global Health.

Ramachandran (2022) and Stevens (2022) provide careful responses to our article (Herder et al. 2022) about universities' failure to enhance access to innovations in the Global South. Ramachandran's (2022) reply underscores our concerns with the process, and Stevens (2022) brings an industry perspective to contest our conclusions.

The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science.

There is growing concern that the innovation system's ability to create wealth and attain social benefit is declining in effectiveness. This article explores the reasons for this decline and suggests a structure, the open science partnership, as one mechanism through which to slow down or reverse this decline. The article examines the empirical literature of the last century to document the decline. This literature suggests that the cost of research and innovation is increasing exponentially, that researcher productivity is declining, and, third, that these two phenomena have led to an overall flat or declining level of innovation productivity. The article then turns to three explanations for the decline - the growing complexity of science, a mismatch of incentives, and a balkanization of knowledge. Finally, the article explores the role that open science partnerships - public-private partnerships based on open access publications, open data and materials, and the avoidance of restrictive forms of intellectual property - can play in increasing the efficiency of the innovation system.

Age at menarche and risk of vasomotor menopausal symptoms: a pooled analysis of six studies.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between age at menarche and risk of vasomotor menopausal symptoms (VMS) and whether midlife body mass index (BMI) modified the association. DESIGN: A pooled analysis of six cohort studies. SETTING: The International collaboration on the Life course Approach to reproductive health and Chronic disease Events (InterLACE). POPULATION: 18 555 women from the UK, USA and Australia. METHODS: VMS frequency data (never, rarely, sometimes and often) were harmonised from two studies (n = 13 602); severity data (never, mild, moderate and severe) from the other four studies (n = 4953). Multinominal logistic regression models were used to estimate relative risk ratios (RRRs) and 95% CIs adjusted for confounders and incorporated study as random effects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hot flushes and night sweats. RESULTS: Frequency data showed that early menarche ≤11 years was associated with an increased risk of 'often' hot flushes (RRR 1.48, 95% CI 1.24-1.76) and night sweats (RRR 1.59, 95% CI 1.49-1.70) compared with menarche at ≥14 years. Severity data showed similar results, but appeared less conclusive, with RRRs of 1.16 (95% CI 0.94-1.42) and 1.27 (95% CI 1.01-1.58) for 'severe' hot flushes and night sweats, respectively. BMI significantly modified the association as the risk associated with early menarche and 'often' VMS was stronger among women who were overweight or obese than those of normal weight, while this gradient across BMI categories was not as strong with the risk of 'severe' VMS. CONCLUSIONS: Early age at menarche is a risk factor for VMS, particularly for frequent VMS, but midlife BMI may play an important role in modifying this risk. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Overweight and obesity exacerbate the risk of vasomotor symptoms associated with early menarche.

An open toolkit for tracking open science partnership implementation and impact.

Serious concerns about the way research is organized collectively are increasingly being raised. They include the escalating costs of research and lower research productivity, low public trust in researchers to report the truth, lack of diversity, poor community engagement, ethical concerns over research practices, and irreproducibility. Open science (OS) collaborations comprise of a set of practices including open access publication, open data sharing and the absence of restrictive intellectual property rights with which institutions, firms, governments and communities are experimenting in order to overcome these concerns. We gathered two groups of international representatives from a large variety of stakeholders to construct a toolkit to guide and facilitate data collection about OS and non-OS collaborations. Ultimately, the toolkit will be used to assess and study the impact of OS collaborations on research and innovation. The toolkit contains the following four elements: 1) an annual report form of quantitative data to be completed by OS partnership administrators; 2) a series of semi-structured interview guides of stakeholders; 3) a survey form of participants in OS collaborations; and 4) a set of other quantitative measures best collected by other organizations, such as research foundations and governmental or intergovernmental agencies. We opened our toolkit to community comment and input. We present the resulting toolkit for use by government and philanthropic grantors, institutions, researchers and community organizations with the aim of measuring the implementation and impact of OS partnership across these organizations. We invite these and other stakeholders to not only measure, but to share the resulting data so that social scientists and policy makers can analyse the data across projects.

International Divergence in Gene Patenting.

This review explores the recent divergence in international patent law relating to genes and associated subject matter. This divergence stems primarily from decisions of the highest courts in the United States and Australia on the eligibility of patent claims relating to the BRCA gene sequences. Patent offices, courts, and policy makers have struggled for many years to clearly articulate the bounds of patent claims on isolated and synthetic DNA and related products and processes, including methods for their use in genetic diagnostics. This review provides context to the current divergence by mapping key events in the gene patent journey from the early 1980s onward in five key jurisdictions: the United States, the member states of the European Patent Convention, Australia, Canada, and China. Early approaches to gene patenting had some commonalities across jurisdictions, which makes exploration of the recent divergence all the more interesting.There is insufficient empirical evidence to date to confidently predict the consequences of this recent divergence. However, it could potentially have a significant effect on local industry and on consumer access.

Defining Success in Open Science.

Mounting evidence indicates that worldwide, innovation systems are increasing unsustainable. Equally, concerns about inequities in the science and innovation process, and in access to its benefits, continue. Against a backdrop of growing health, economic and scientific challenges global stakeholders are urgently seeking to spur innovation and maximize the just distribution of benefits for all. Open Science collaboration (OS) - comprising a variety of approaches to increase open, public, and rapid mobilization of scientific knowledge - is seen to be one of the most promising ways forward. Yet, many decision-makers hesitate to construct policy to support the adoption and implementation of OS without access to substantive, clear and reliable evidence. In October 2017, international thought-leaders gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC offices of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful Open Science looks like. Delegates from developed and developing nations, national governments, science agencies and funding bodies, philanthropy, researchers, patient organizations and the biotechnology, pharma and artificial intelligence (AI) industries discussed the outcomes that would rally them to invest in OS, as well as wider issues of policy and implementation. This first of two reports, summarizes delegates' views on what they believe OS will deliver in terms of research, innovation and social impact in the life sciences. Through open and collaborative process over the next months, we will translate these success outcomes into a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess when, where and how open science collaborations best advance research, innovation and social benefit. Ultimately, this work aims to develop and openly share tools to allow stakeholders to evaluate and re-invent their innovation ecosystems, to maximize value for the global public and patients, and address long-standing questions about the mechanics of innovation.

Defining Success in Open Science [version 2; peer review:2 approved].

Mounting evidence indicates that worldwide, innovation systems are increasing unsustainable. Equally, concerns about inequities in the science and innovation process, and in access to its benefits, continue. Against a backdrop of growing health, economic and scientific challenges global stakeholders are urgently seeking to spur innovation and maximize the just distribution of benefits for all. Open Science collaboration (OS) - comprising a variety of approaches to increase open, public, and rapid mobilization of scientific knowledge - is seen to be one of the most promising ways forward. Yet, many decision-makers hesitate to construct policy to support the adoption and implementation of OS without access to substantive, clear and reliable evidence. In October 2017, international thought-leaders gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC offices of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful Open Science looks like. Delegates from developed and developing nations, national governments, science agencies and funding bodies, philanthropy, researchers, patient organizations and the biotechnology, pharma and artificial intelligence (AI) industries discussed the outcomes that would rally them to invest in OS, as well as wider issues of policy and implementation. This first of two reports, summarizes delegates' views on what they believe OS will deliver in terms of research, innovation and social impact in the life sciences. Through open and collaborative process over the next months, we will translate these success outcomes into a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess when, where and how open science collaborations best advance research, innovation and social benefit. Ultimately, this work aims to develop and openly share tools to allow stakeholders to evaluate and re-invent their innovation ecosystems, to maximize value for the global public and patients, and address long-standing questions about the mechanics of innovation.

Identifying the challenges in implementing open science [version 1; peer review: 2 approved].

Areas of open science (OS) policy and practice are already relatively well-advanced in several countries and sectors through the initiatives of some governments, funders, philanthropy, researchers and the community. Nevertheless, the current research and innovation system, including in the focus of this report, the life sciences, remains weighted against OS. In October 2017, thought-leaders from across the world gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC office of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful OS looks like. We focused on OS partnerships as this is an emerging model that aims to accelerate science and innovation. These outcomes are captured in a first meeting report: Defining Success in Open Science. On several occasions, these conversations turned to the challenges that must be addressed and new policies required to effectively and sustainably advance OS practice. Thereupon, in this report, we describe the concerns raised and what is needed to address them supplemented by our review of the literature, and suggest the stakeholder groups that may be best placed to begin to take action. It emerges that to be successful, OS will require the active engagement of all stakeholders: while the research community must develop research questions, identify partners and networks, policy communities need to create an environment that is supportive of experimentation by removing barriers. This report aims to contribute to ongoing discussions about OS and its implementation. It is also part of a step-wise process to develop and mobilize a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assist global stakeholders in implementing high value OS collaborations. Currently in co-development through an open and international process, this set of measures will allow the generation of needed evidence on the influence of OS partnerships on research, innovation, and critical social and economic goals.

Motivating participation in open science by examining researcher incentives.

Support for open science is growing, but motivating researchers to participate in open science can be challenging. This in-depth qualitative study draws on interviews with researchers and staff at the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital during the development of its open science policy. Using thematic content analysis, we explore attitudes toward open science, the motivations and disincentives to participate, the role of patients, and attitudes to the eschewal of intellectual property rights. To be successful, an open science policy must clearly lay out expectations, boundaries and mechanisms by which researchers can engage, and must be shaped to explicitly support their values and those of key partners, including patients, research participants and industry collaborators.

More Haste, Less Speed: Could Public-Private Partnerships Advance Cellular Immunotherapies?

Cellular immunotherapies promise to transform cancer care. However, they must overcome serious challenges, including: (1) the need to identify and characterize novel cancer antigens to expand the range of therapeutic targets; (2) the need to develop strategies to minimize serious adverse events, such as cytokine release syndrome and treatment-related toxicities; and (3) the need to develop efficient production/manufacturing processes to reduce costs. Here, we discuss whether these challenges might better be addressed through forms of public-private research collaborations, including public-private partnerships (PPPs), or whether these challenges are best addressed by way of standard market transactions. We reviewed 14 public-private relationships and 25 underlying agreements for the clinical development of cancer cellular immunotherapies in the US. Most were based on bilateral research agreements and pure market transactions in the form of service contracts and technology licenses, which is representative of the commercialization focus of the field. We make the strategic case that multiparty PPPs may better advance cancer antigen discovery and characterization and improved cell processing/manufacturing and related activities. In the rush toward the competitive end of the translational continuum for cancer cellular immunotherapy and the attendant focus on commercialization, many gaps have appeared in our understanding of cellular biology, immunology, and bioengineering. We conclude that the model of bilateral agreements between leading research institutions and the private sector may be inadequate to efficiently harness the interdisciplinary skills and knowledge of the public and private sectors to bring these promising therapies to the clinic for the benefit of cancer patients.

Gene patents still alive and kicking: their impact on provision of genetic testing for long QT syndrome in the Canadian public health-care system.

PurposeAlthough the Supreme Court of the United States limited their availability in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, gene patents remain important around the world. We examine the situation in Canada, where gene patents continue to exist, in light of recent litigation relating to familial long QT syndrome (LQTS).MethodsWe conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 25 stakeholders across five Canadian provinces and supplemented this with a case analysis of the litigation.ResultsThe majority of LQTS testing was carried out outside Canada. Rising costs prompted several provinces to attempt to repatriate testing. However, LQTS gene patents stymied efforts, particularly in provinces where testing was more centralized, increasing costs and lowering innovation. It was in this context that a hospital launched a test case against the LQTS patents, resulting in a novel agreement to free Canadian hospitals from the effects of patents.ConclusionOur analysis reveals a rapidly evolving genetic test provision landscape under pressure from gene patents, strained budgets and poor collaboration. The litigation resulted in a blueprint for free public use of gene patents throughout Canada's health-care system, but it will only have value if governments are proactive in its use.

Accelerating Translational Research through Open Science: The Neuro Experiment.

Translational research is often afflicted by a fundamental problem: a limited understanding of disease mechanisms prevents effective targeting of new treatments. Seeking to accelerate research advances and reimagine its role in the community, the Montreal Neurological Institute (Neuro) announced in the spring of 2016 that it is launching a five-year experiment during which it will adopt Open Science-open data, open materials, and no patenting-across the institution. The experiment seeks to examine two hypotheses. The first is whether the Neuro's Open Science initiative will attract new private partners. The second hypothesis is that the Neuro's institution-based approach will draw companies to the Montreal region, where the Neuro is based, leading to the creation of a local knowledge hub. This article explores why these hypotheses are likely to be true and describes the Neuro's approach to exploring them.

Bleeding patterns during the menopausal transition in the multi-ethnic Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN): a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies describing menses duration and heaviness of flow during the menopausal transition (MT) have been short in duration and limited to white women. We estimated the frequency of and risk factors for prolonged bleeding, spotting and heavy bleeding during the MT in an ethnically diverse population. DESIGN: Prospective community-based cohort study. SETTING USA: southeastern Michigan, northern California and Los Angeles, California. POPULATION: A total of 1320 midlife women who participated in the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN) Menstrual Calendar Substudy. Participants included African-American, white, Chinese, and Japanese women. METHODS: Women completed daily menstrual calendars from 1996 to 2006, and provided information on hormone therapy, smoking and physical activity. Annual measures included height and weight. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable regression were used to analyse the data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Menses of 10+ days, spotting of 6+ days, heavy bleeding of 3+ days. RESULTS: At least three occurrences of menses 10+ days was reported by 77.7% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 56.7-93.2), of 6+ days of spotting by 66.8% (95% CI 55.2-78.0) and of 3+ days of heavy bleeding by 34.5% (95% CI 30.2-39.2) of women. Menses of 10+ days, 6+ days of spotting, and 3+ days of heavy bleeding were associated with MT stage, uterine fibroids, hormone use and ethnicity. Body mass index was associated with 3+ days of heavy bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide clinicians and women with important information about the expected frequency of prolonged and heavy bleeding and spotting during the menopausal transition that may facilitate clinical decision making.

Patents and human rights: a heterodox analysis.

Much international debate over access to medicines focuses on whether patent law accords with international human rights law. This article argues that this is the wrong question to ask. Following an analysis of both patent and human rights law, this article suggests that the better approach is to focus on national debates over the best calibration of patent law to achieve national objectives.