Yesterday was a busy one full of networking and new ideas. In particular, the event that I attended in Palo Alto last night sponsored by MIT was rather enlightening. It was held at an IP law firm. Naturally, the topic of patents and innovation came up. The way the current system works, many companies are fearful of allowing scientists to leverage research patented by other firms for fear of lawsuits. It seemed that the one measure promoting cooperation was the fact that lawsuits are expensive to prosecute. The view was presented that academic institutions and scientists "ultimately do what's right for patients" despite minimal public scrutiny. The NBB View: POWER CORRUPTS.
- This quote from the following white paper over at Genstruct characterizes the innovation problem well:
- "The FDA defines critical path research as the ability to translate basic research into innovative products, and this deficiency is the focus of the innovation gap. One hypothesis that can explain this gap is that the basic sciences now create new biomedical knowledge at a rate that outpaces the human ability to capture and process the knowledge in ways that lead to new product innovations. Supporting this hypothesis is the current approach in the pharmaceutical industry that suggests that minimum critical mass for a research team is 100–150 scientists, combined with the output of high-throughput screening, combinatorial chemistry, and highthroughput biology (genomics, proteomics,and other panomics technologies)."
Silicon Valley infotech companies don't suffer from a lack of cooperation or ability to keep up with new ideas. Why can't Life Sciences companies and academic research organizations work together to share costs and IP? Silicon Valley VCs have lost much capital over the years by allowing engineers to make business decisions. Why do doctors and scientists get to make these business decisions?
The barriers to entry, from medical licensing to control over public tax dollars, have prevented competition and scrutiny. Recent legislation requiring NIH funded research to be published publicly through Pub Med within 1 year is a good first step. The adoption of Open Source research under GPL needs to be the next step. In my mind, the superior economics and productivity make this model inevitable in medicine too. Dying patients can't wait. Democracies can't tolerate opaque bureaucracies.
- I leave readers with this quote from Wikipedia:
- Linus's Law according to Eric S. Raymond states that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". More formally: "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone." The rule was formulated and named by Eric S. Raymond in his essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar".
On a lighter note, check back tomorrow for a report on Stanford's BioX event that focuses on interdisciplinary research methods.
No comments:
Post a Comment