Beyond financial conflicts of interest: Institutional oversight of faculty consulting agreements at schools of medicine and public health.

IMPORTANCE: Approximately one-third of U.S. life sciences faculty engage in industry consulting. Despite reports that consulting contracts often impinge on faculty and university interests, institutional approaches to regulating consulting agreements are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the nature of institutional oversight of faculty consulting contracts at U.S. schools of medicine and public health. DESIGN: Structured telephone interviews with institutional administrators. Questions included the nature of oversight for faculty consulting agreements, if any, and views about consulting as a private versus institutional matter. Interviews were analyzed using a structured coding scheme. SETTING: All accredited schools of medicine and public health in the U.S. PARTICIPANTS: Administrators responsible for faculty affairs were identified via internet searches and telephone and email follow-up. The 118 administrators interviewed represented 73% of U.S. schools of medicine and public health, and 75% of those invited to participate. INTERVENTION: Structured, 15-30 minute telephone interviews. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prevalence and type of institutional oversight; responses to concerning provisions in consulting agreements; perceptions of institutional oversight. RESULTS: One third of institutions (36%) required faculty to submit at least some agreements for institutional review and 36% reviewed contracts upon request, while 35% refused to review contracts. Among institutions with review, there was wide variation the issues covered. The most common topic was intellectual property rights (64%), while only 23% looked at publication rights and 19% for inappropriately broad confidentiality provisions. Six in ten administrators reported they had no power to prevent faculty from signing consulting agreements. Although most respondents identified institutional risks from consulting relationships, many maintained that consulting agreements are "private." CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Oversight of faculty consulting agreements at U.S. schools of medicine and public health is inconsistent across institutions and usually not robust. The interests at stake suggest the need for stronger oversight.

Dual use issues in research - A subject of increasing concern?

Dual use is defined as the application of materials, knowledge or technologies for military or terrorist purposes, as well as for good. In biological science, it is considered to be a growing threat as the genetics of pathogenicity traits and toxins are becoming on one hand elucidated in a detail that was not anticipated 20years ago and on the other hand technological advances in genetic engineering and synthetic biology are continually enabling easier access to these technologies. On a theoretical and policy level, much has happened over the past decade, but translating these policies and concepts to operational level awareness and robust processes requires more attention. Where the research is conducted, scientists have to make ethical judgements and account for their data sharing and publication policies. How can we ensure the requirement for dual use review is taken on board, but is not skewing research detrimentally and imposing a disproportionate burden?

Product Development and Commercialization of Diagnostic or Life Science Products for Scientists and Researchers.

Commercializing a diagnostic or life science product often encompasses different goals than that of research and grant funding. There are several necessary steps, and a strategy needs to be well defined in order to be successful. Product development requires input from and between various groups within a company and, for academia, outside entities. The product development stakeholder groups/entities are research, marketing, development, regulatory, manufacturing, clinical, safety/efficacy, and quality. After initial research and development, much of the work in product development can be outsourced or jointly created using public-private partnerships. This chapter serves as an overview of the product development process and provides a guide to best define a product strategy.

BioSharing: curated and crowd-sourced metadata standards, databases and data policies in the life sciences.

BioSharing (http://www.biosharing.org) is a manually curated, searchable portal of three linked registries. These resources cover standards (terminologies, formats and models, and reporting guidelines), databases, and data policies in the life sciences, broadly encompassing the biological, environmental and biomedical sciences. Launched in 2011 and built by the same core team as the successful MIBBI portal, BioSharing harnesses community curation to collate and cross-reference resources across the life sciences from around the world. BioSharing makes these resources findable and accessible (the core of the FAIR principle). Every record is designed to be interlinked, providing a detailed description not only on the resource itself, but also on its relations with other life science infrastructures. Serving a variety of stakeholders, BioSharing cultivates a growing community, to which it offers diverse benefits. It is a resource for funding bodies and journal publishers to navigate the metadata landscape of the biological sciences; an educational resource for librarians and information advisors; a publicising platform for standard and database developers/curators; and a research tool for bench and computer scientists to plan their work. BioSharing is working with an increasing number of journals and other registries, for example linking standards and databases to training material and tools. Driven by an international Advisory Board, the BioSharing user-base has grown by over 40% (by unique IP address), in the last year thanks to successful engagement with researchers, publishers, librarians, developers and other stakeholders via several routes, including a joint RDA/Force11 working group and a collaboration with the International Society for Biocuration. In this article, we describe BioSharing, with a particular focus on community-led curation.Database URL: https://www.biosharing.org.

Protecting Trade Secrets in Canada.

Patents in the life sciences industries are a key form of intellectual property (IP), particularly for products such as brand-name drugs and medical devices. However, trade secrets can also be a useful tool for many types of innovations. In appropriate cases, trade secrets can offer long-term protection of IP for a lower financial cost than patenting. This type of protection must be approached with caution as there is little room for error when protecting a trade secret. Strong agreements and scrupulous security can help to protect the secret. Once a trade secret is disclosed to the public, it cannot be restored as the owner's property; however, if the information is kept from the public domain, the owner can have a property right of unlimited duration in the information. In some situations patents and trade secrets may be used cooperatively to protect innovation, particularly for manufacturing processes.

Trade secrets in life science and pharmaceutical companies.

Trade secret protection arises under state common law and state statutes. In general, a trade secret is information that is not generally known to the public and is maintained as a secret, and it provides a competitive advantage or economic benefit to the trade secret holder. Trade secrets can be worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and damage awards in trade secret litigation have been high; often, there is a lot at stake. Obtaining a trade secret through "improper means" is misappropriation. If the alleged trade secret, however, was developed independently, known publicly, or not maintained as a secret, then those defenses may successfully overcome a claim for trade secret misappropriation. With today's interconnectedness in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields, more collaborations, joint ventures, and outsourcing arrangements among firms, and increased mobility of employees' careers, life science companies need to not only understand how to protect their trade secrets, but also know how to defend against a claim for trade secret theft.

Patenting the life sciences at the European Patent Office.

The European patent system is very much like those of the United States and other major countries. Patent applications can be filed as a first filing, as a priority application, or as a national phase of a Patent Cooperation Treaty application. The applications are searched, rigorously examined, and ultimately granted, with the time periods varying somewhat depending on the application type. The object of this article is to highlight some of the differences between the U.S. and European systems, particularly as they relate to life sciences.

Japan's patent issues relating to life science therapeutic inventions.

Japan has made 'innovation in science and technology' as one of its central pillars to ensure high growth in its next stage of economic development and its life sciences market which hosts regenerative medicine was proclaimed to be 'the best market in the world right now.' Although life science therapeutic inventions are patentable subject matter under Japanese patent law, there are nuanced obviousness and enablement challenges under Japanese patent law that can be surmounted in view of some encouraging Japanese court developments in fostering a pro-patent applicant environment in the life sciences therapeutic patent field. Nevertheless, great care must be taken when drafting and prosecuting such patent applications in the world's second most important life sciences therapeutic market.

Evolution of different dual-use concepts in international and national law and its implications on research ethics and governance.

This paper provides an overview of the various dual-use concepts applied in national and international non-proliferation and anti-terrorism legislation, such as the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, and national export control legislation and in relevant codes of conduct. While there is a vast literature covering dual-use concepts in particular with regard to life sciences, this is the first paper that incorporates into such discussion the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540. In addition, recent developments such as the extension of dual-use export control legislation in the area of human rights protection are also identified and reviewed. The discussion of dual-use concepts is hereby undertaken in the context of human- and/or national-security-based approaches to security. This paper discusses four main concepts of dual use as applied today in international and national law: civilian versus military, peaceful versus non-peaceful, legitimate versus illegitimate and benevolent versus malevolent. In addition, the usage of the term to describe positive technology spin-offs between civilian and military applications is also briefly addressed. Attention is also given to the roles civil society and research ethics may play in the governance of dual-use sciences and technologies.

The concept of governance in dual-use research.

The rapid advance of life science within the context of increased international concern over the potential misuse of findings has resulted in the lack of agreement on the issues of responsibility, control and collaboration. This progress of knowledge outpaces the efforts of creating moral and legal guidelines for the detection and minimization of the risks in the research process. There is a need to identify and address normative aspects of dual-use research. This paper focuses on the issues of safety and global collaboration in life science research by highlighting the importance of openness, enabling policies and cooperative governance. These safeguards are believed to reduce the risks related to the misuse of science while enabling the important research to move forward. The paper addresses the need for a better definition of dual use concept and, based on the historical precedents, explores the moral concerns and governmental strategies of dual-use research. The three necessary moves in addressing the issue of security in life sciences are suggested: the move from constraining to enabling types of policies, the move from secrecy to openness, and the move from segregation to integration of the public voice.

Data sharing and dual-use issues.

The concept of dual-use encapsulates the potential for well-intentioned, beneficial scientific research to also be misused by a third party for malicious ends. The concept of dual-use challenges scientists to look beyond the immediate outcomes of their research and to develop an awareness of possible future (mis)uses of scientific research. Since 2001 much attention has been paid to the possible need to regulate the dual-use potential of the life sciences. Regulation initiatives fall under two broad categories-those that develop the ethical education of scientists and foster an awareness and responsibility of dual-use issues, and those which assess the regulation of information being generated by current research. Both types of initiatives are premised on a cautious, risk-adverse philosophy which advocates careful examination of all future endpoints of research endeavors. This caution advocated within initiatives such as pre-publication review of journal articles contrasts to the obligation to share underpinning data sharing discussions. As the dual-use debate has yet to make a significant impact on data sharing discussions (and vice versa) it is possible that these two areas of knowledge control may present areas of ethical conflict for scientists, and thus need to be more closely examined. This paper examines the tension between the obligation to share exemplified by data sharing principles and the concerns raised by the risk-cautious culture of the dual-use debates. The paper concludes by reflecting on the issues of responsibility as raised by dual-use as relating to data sharing, such as the chain of custody for shared data.

Solving bottlenecks in data sharing in the life sciences.

The joint Open PHACTS/GEN2PHEN workshop on "Solving Bottlenecks in Data Sharing in the Life Sciences" was held in Volendam, the Netherlands, on September 19 and 20, 2011, and was attended by representatives from academia, industry, publishing, and funding agencies. The aim of the workshop was to explore the issues that influence the extent to which data in the life sciences are shared, and to explore sustainability scenarios that would enable and promote "open" data sharing. Several key challenges were identified and solutions to each of these were proposed.