Concept Article pubs.acs.org/OPRD
Precompetitive Collaboration on Enabling Technologies for the Pharmaceutical Industry Christopher J. Welch,*,† Joel M. Hawkins,*,‡ and Jean Tom*,§ †
Merck Research Laboratories, Rahway, New Jersey, United States Pfizer Worldwide Research and Development, Groton, Connecticut, United States § Bristol Myers Squibb, Late Phase Chemical Development, New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States ‡
ABSTRACT: As the pharmaceutical industry continues to explore new ways to stimulate innovation, reduce costs, and streamline operations, the idea of joining forces in cross-pharma collaborations on the development of new and valuable precompetitive technologies becomes increasingly attractive. Before industry-wide precompetitive collaboration can become truly commonplace and more effective, improved approaches for creating and maintaining collaborations between competitors are needed. A recent Council for Chemical Research workshop at the University of Pennsylvania on precompetitive collaborations on enabling chemical and chemical engineering technologies for the pharmaceutical industry revealed widespread interest among participants from industry, academia and government to augment and improve current methods. While it is important not to underestimate the challenges of multiparty collaborations, the value coming from pooling resources and combining intellectual input provides strong incentive to improve and foster precompetitive collaborations. Here we summarize key points from this discussion and propose a new hybrid model for improved collaborative development of new enabling technologies for the pharmaceutical industry.
■
■
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND The research and development (R&D) laboratories of today’s pharmaceutical industry are dramatically different from their predecessors from a decade or two ago, when traditional big pharma companies acted as self-contained, proudly independent companies carrying out all aspects of discovery and manufacturing under a single roof. In that era, the supporting technologies that enabled R&D were typically carried out internally, with on-site scale-up facilities, machine shops, glassblowers, etc. During the 1990s, there was a major push to develop technologies to increase the speed of drug discovery and development. This era saw a rapid increase in the use of laboratory automation and robotics and led to the streamlining of many traditional R&D workflows using high-throughput experimentation. A focus on the core business of drug discovery, development, and manufacturing led to the divestiture or elimination of many peripheral businesses and supporting services during this period, with these functions now being provided by specialized external companies. The 1990s also saw the beginning of a push to outsource the synthesis of development candidates and final APIs, a move that began with contracting the synthesis of relatively simple intermediates to facilities in the United States and Europe to augment a lean workforce during periods of peak workload. The net result of this experience was a growing acceptance and familiarity with sourcing and partnering, including an improved understanding of the potential pitfalls of external collaboration. During the 2000s, cost reduction for all components of the R&D enterprise became increasingly important, leading to
The current challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry are the subject of ongoing news reports.1 Pharmaceutical companies are confronted with patent expiries and the loss of exclusivity for existing products, increasing competition from generics, and growing price sensitivity from patients and payers. At the same time, the industry is suffering from what has been termed a crisis of innovation with the discovery, development, and commercialization of new products becoming slower, less successful, and more expensive with each passing year, with a decreasing number of commercialized medicines eventually recouping the costs of discovery and development.2−4 As the pharmaceutical industry explores new ways to stimulate innovation while increasing efficiency and reducing costs, the idea of joining forces in cross-pharma collaborations on the development of new precompetitive technologies becomes increasingly attractive. Here we present highlights from a recent Council for Chemical Research (CCR) workshop5 at the University of Pennsylvania where scientists from industry, academia, and government discussed the strengths and weaknesses of precompetitive collaborations on enabling chemical and chemical engineering technologies for the pharmaceutical industry and directions for future improvements. We conclude by proposing a new hybrid model for defining and carrying out cross-pharma precompetitive collaborations that allows multiple pharma companies to share in the benefit of precompetitive collaborations on several projects, with each project team sized appropriately for success and with each pharma involved in a manageable number of projects. © XXXX American Chemical Society
Received: January 20, 2014
A
dx.doi.org/10.1021/op500023q | Org. Process Res. Dev. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Organic Process Research & Development
Concept Article
Figure 1. Decision tree illustrating several possible categories of precompetitive collaboration projects (highlighted in green). In general, Pharma partners do not require exclusivity for precompetitive technologies, requiring only the freedom-to-operate. External partners (nonpharma) may or may not require exclusivity.
increased outsourcing to lower cost locations, and a further leaning of the remaining core workforce.
participants, collaborative intellectual input also brings great value. More comprehensive evaluations of ideas and projects using diverse teams of like-minded researchers with different perspectives, backgrounds, and approaches can improve the probability of success, minimizing the creation of ‘white elephant’ technologies that look good for a year or two but are ultimately abandoned. Just what IS ‘Precompetitive’? The definition of what is competitive vs precompetitive is not always straightforward. As pharma has historically treated everything as competitive, there is little institutional experience with navigating this sometimes tricky boundary. Clearly, technologies that are closely tied to key differentiating strategies are competitive, and therefore generally not suitable for collaborations with competitors. In contrast, more generally enabling technologies with the potential to be widely used across pharma could be candidates for precompetitive collaboration. Examples range from more efficient, more powerful, or more affordable laboratory equipment, reagents, or software, to fundamentally new technologies that revolutionize pharmaceutical research. A potential problem arises when the need for a generally enabling technology is tied to a specific differentiating strategy, creating a ‘slippery slope’ where prolonged discussion of the technology or its use could lead to the risk of disclosing proprietary information. However, such situations can be avoided by keeping the discussion of technical requirements at a high level, or by avoiding collaboration on such projects altogether. In general, pharma participants in precompetitive collaborations require freedom-to-operate the newly created technologies, generally preferring to publish and make the new
■
INVESTMENT IN NEW ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES Investment in new enabling technologies for pharmaceutical R&D has long been used to develop faster, better, and more affordable tools and techniques that help researchers do their work more effectively and provide new capabilities. Historically, targeted allocation of both research labor and external funding to address unmet R&D technology needs has been used to drive these new innovations. While some of this work is proprietary, leading to patents and trade secrets, a substantial portion is deemed to be ‘precompetitive,’ ultimately being freely reported in publications and presentations with the objective of stimulating additional research in the field. In addition to internal efforts, pharma has historically provided external funding to academic groups, along with encouragement to work (and publish) on emerging problems with potential long-term benefit to the industry. As pharma continues the drive for leaner organizations and additional cost reductions, both internal research and external funding for academic research on the creation and development of new enabling technologies has been significantly curtailed, with the long-term impact of this acute decrease in investment in nextgeneration technologies being a cause for concern. One possible solution to this challenge is for pharma companies to join forces, pool resources, and collaborate on the creation of new enabling technologies that are deemed to be precompetitive in nature. In addition to the potential for direct economic savings by sharing costs, labor, and risks among B
dx.doi.org/10.1021/op500023q | Org. Process Res. Dev. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Organic Process Research & Development
Concept Article
Figure 2. Potential areas for precompetitive collaboration on enabling chemical and chemical engineering technologies presented by pharma participants at the recent CCR workshop. While this list is neither prioritized nor exclusive, it is indicative of a general willingness of pharma companies to engage in precompetitive collaborations on a wide variety of enabling technologies.
findings broadly available without license or royalty fees. Notably, the direct savings in royalty and licensing fees is only a part of the cost advantage of ‘public domain’ technologies. A more important consideration is the increased flexibility in applying such public domain technologies and the freedom from the administrative overhead required to identify and track the usage of licensed technologies, negotiate agreements, and oversee payments. The decision tree in Figure 1 illustrates several possible categories of precompetitive collaboration on enabling technologies for the pharmaceutical industry. Projects where the pharma partners require exclusive right to the new technology (beyond freedom-to-operate) are typically out of scope for precompetitive collaborations. In cases where solution providers from outside the pharma industry are involved, an important consideration is whether or not these external parties will require exclusive ownership of the technology being created. For example, in a cross-pharma collaboration with an academic to develop a new reagent or reaction, all parties may agree to publish the results of the investigation without patenting, thereby making the technology broadly available and free to use for all. Such an approach can actually lead to increased adoption and utilization of the new technology, while in contrast, patenting can slow the adoption of emerging technologies as pharma companies seek to utilize ‘open source’ alternatives.6 In other instances, the nonpharma collaborator may need the exclusivity and protection that patenting will provide, a situation that often exists when dealing with third party vendors specializing in the commercialization of certain technologies. For example, in a cross-pharma collaboration with an instrument vendor it is understandable that the project viewed by the pharma partners as precompetitive will be viewed by the instrument vendor as competitive, especially if the vendor funds the bulk of the development of the instrument. Here, patenting the newly created technology enables the instrument vendor to compete in the marketplace. From the pharma perspective, this decision to patent could lead to concerns regarding access costs and the risks of placing the new technology in the hands of a single source, a situation that can be especially problematic when
dealing with small startup companies which could go out of business within a few years. Ultimately, the issues around patents and freedom-to-operate with third party collaborators comes down to a business decision comparing the costs of securing ongoing access to the technology with the value of the distinct capabilities provided by the third party. During a workshop breakout session, participants identified several possible areas for precompetitive collaboration on enabling technologies. The list in Figure 2 is neither prioritized nor exclusive, but provides a general sense of what pharma companies might consider to be in scope for precompetitive collaborations. Enabling technologies such as laboratory instrumentation, analytical tools, synthetic methodology, modeling software, informatics, and manufacturing technologies that can be applied generally to improve efficiency within the pharmaceutical industry were widely perceived to be in scope for precompetitive collaborations. Areas such as the sharing of toxicology data will likely elicit discussion on how best to collaborate without revealing privileged information on new drug compounds or targets. The choice of projects for precompetitive collaboration requires careful consideration, and going forward, this can and should be done more systematically across the industry. In addition to choosing a project solidly in the precompetitive realm, with minimal opportunities for the loss of proprietary information, the choice of projects that are likely to deliver broad benefit across a wide sector of the pharmaceutical industry will help to ensure the desired return on investment. In the near term, comparing notes on existing or soon to launch technology development projects can help to identify additional opportunities for the collaborative development of new enabling technologies. Going forward, the creation of a mechanism for the collective identification and prioritization of key technology gaps will help to maintain focus on the most important industry-wide areas of interest. These high-priority technology needs can be communicated directly to solution providers, or joint brainstorming around these high-priority needs by a mixture of pharma participants and solution providers could help to spawn new projects for consideration by the group. Indeed, creating the inf rastructure to allow C
dx.doi.org/10.1021/op500023q | Org. Process Res. Dev. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Organic Process Research & Development
Concept Article
appropriate sharing of needs and ideas without loss of conf idential information will be as important as creating the right inf rastructure to ensure smooth f unctioning of the collaborations themselves. The synergistic generation and prioritization of ideas for collaborations within this infrastructure will require a balanced blend of group focus and individual sparks of innovation within an appropriately trusting environment. Clearly, such a change will require a significant cultural shift on the part of both pharma and external solution providers, but early indications suggest that there is growing interest in such a solution. Cross-Pharma Collaboration on Precompetitive Enabling Technologies: The Pros. The greatest advantage of precompetitive collaborations on enabling technologies for the pharmaceutical industry is the increase in innovation and improved probability of successful outcomes that can result from creating an industry-wide process for the identification, evaluation, and deployment of new enabling technologies that serve the needs of the entire industry. The value resulting from this collective intellectual input from diverse teams from different companies with different perspectives, backgrounds, and approaches makes the collaboration on new enabling technologies compelling, even eclipsing the important cost saving efficiencies coming from pooling resources, sharing costs and risks, and reducing parallel efforts. Cross-Pharma Collaboration on Precompetitive Enabling Technologies: The Cons. As attractive as a pooled approach to the collaborative development of enabling technologies sounds, there are a number of potential disadvantages. It is important not to underestimate the pitfalls that can arise in multiparty collaborations, which can be frustratingly difficult to steer and control if not set up properly. In the worst cases, design by committee can lead to an averaging or a summation of the wishes of all participants, one case leading to mediocrity, the other leading to excessive complexity. Furthermore, the collaborations between competing organizations must be structured in such a way as to avoid any appearance of collusion or impropriety. Care must also be taken to ensure that the savings gained by pooling research labor are not undermined by the increased administrative effort required to coordinate complex activities between multiple participants. In addition, multiparty collaborations often require complex legal agreements, which can be difficult, expensive, and slow to create. Past experience with unsuccessful consortia teaches us to avoid large groups with ill-defined objectives, concentrating instead on smaller, well-defined efforts with clear, agreed upon goals. Individual participants in the collaboration, as well as their line management, must remain committed throughout the entire project, a difficult challenge when local needs loom large, research priorities shift, or area leadership changes. Ideally, in addition to participation in the collaboration by specific technical practitioners, the periodic involvement of cross-disciplinary technology sponsors within each company can provide a broader perspective and help to keep the project on track. Guiding Principles Distilled from Historical Experience. Despite these caveats, successful multiparty collaborations on precompetitive enabling technologies for the pharmaceutical industry are indeed possible, as evidenced by a number of case histories presented at the precompetitive collaboration workshop. Some general guidelines and recommendations can be distilled from these experiences. First, it is advisable to strive for the creation of balanced collaborations where costs as well as risks are shared among the different
members. When selecting collaboration partners, it is important to include participants who have a clear understanding of what is needed and how to achieve it, as well as participants who can provide funding or capabilities to enable the research. When forming the project team, it is important to gather together likeminded people with dif ferent perspectives on the problem at hand. i.e. people who agree on the needs and goals of the collaboration, but bring different backgrounds, expertise, and context for the ultimate utilization of the technologies being developed. Enough members should be chosen to represent the key perspectives and to provide adequate cost sharing, but not so many as to make the management of the team unwieldy. The preferred project size may vary according to the nature of the project, but in general a project size of 3−5 members is more easily managed than that of 8−12. Having a clear understanding of the goals of all members from the outset, as well as a written project work plan, will help to minimize the probability of subsequent disagreements. Partners should be chosen carefully, with the sharing of successful results over time leading to the establishment of increasing trust between competitors, within appropriate guidelines. The Role of Government and Enabling Organizations. The role of government in facilitating precompetitive crossindustry collaboration on the development of new enabling technologies for the pharmaceutical industry was a recurring theme throughout the workshop. Several examples of the involvement of government in creating technology incubators or otherwise facilitating collaboration between different parties on the development of new technologies were presented. Broader public/private partnerships that enable research innovation with a long-term goal of stimulating industry and job creation are currently underway in the EU (e.g., Horizon 20207). The Innovative Medicine Initiative, funded by the European Commission and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Association (EPIA), created to stimulate the development of new medicines, provides some examples targeting the pharmaceutical industry.8 Jacqueline Gervay-Hague, from University of California, Davis, posed an interesting concept for consideration: the idea of modeling a network for the cross-industry development of enabling technologies for the pharmaceutical industry on the agricultural exchange network, originally put in place to promote the exchange of ideas and the dissemination of new technologies for farmers, and a key component in driving improvements in farming over the past century. The idea that such a network, with analogous extension offices and experimental stations, could be useful in similarly driving productivity gains in the pharmaceutical industry was well received by the audience.9 A number of organizations that generally enable collaboration were discussed and deserve some mention here. Membership organization such as the American Chemical Society, the American Institute for Chemical Engineers, and the Royal Society of Chemistry take an active role in fostering scientific collaborations and are a key component in the scientific collaboration ecosystem. Funding organizations such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health often play a crucial role in establishing centers of expertise and sharing networks that serve to promote increased scientific collaboration across industry sectors, while government laboratories such as the National Institutes of Standards and Technology play a crucial role in the technological innovation that will ultimately benefit industry. Finally, specific D
dx.doi.org/10.1021/op500023q | Org. Process Res. Dev. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Organic Process Research & Development
Concept Article
Figure 3. Examples of models for supporting precompetitive collaborations on enabling technologies for pharma.10−17
Model 1. Research collaborations between academics are often enviably simple. In extreme cases, two or more researchers discover a common interest, and embark on a research collaboration without any formalized plans or legal agreements. Clearly, this model is not suitable for collaborations between multibillion dollar entities, but the ‘just do it’ spirit of these academic collaborations can perhaps be allowed to flourish within designated frameworks for precompetitive collaborations between pharma companies. Model 2. In this formalized multiparty collaboration several pharma companies collaborate on a specific topic, dividing costs and labor and sharing the results of the research between participants. A contractual agreement is typically required for each project, but because no funds are transferred and freedom-
organizations such as the University-Industry Demonstration Partnership and the Council for Chemical Research are umbrella organizations with the specific mission of fostering increased collaboration between industry, academia and government laboratories. Models for Collaboration. Several different models for precompetitive collaboration in Pharma were discussed at the workshop as summarized in Figure 3. This list is not intended to be comprehensive, but only to cover the major areas of discussion at the workshop. Among the attributes of any model are (1) the roles of the collaborating parties, (2) where the collaborative research will be conducted, (3) the existence and nature of any legal agreements, and (4) the funding model. E
dx.doi.org/10.1021/op500023q | Org. Process Res. Dev. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Organic Process Research & Development
Concept Article
Figure 4. Hybrid model proposed as a preferred model for precompetitive collaborations.
to-operate rather than exclusivity is required for any intellectual property generated, the arrangement can be relatively straightforward. However, getting multiple parties to agree on the wording of a common agreement can be slow and difficult. Model 3. In multipharma collaborations with external providers each of the participating companies signs a parallel agreement with the external provider. Here too, getting multiple parties to agree on the wording of a common agreement can be slow and difficult. Model 4. The ‘honest broker’ model for precompetitive collaborations offers the advantage of simplified interactions with external parties. Rather than requiring parallel agreements between each company and the external party providing goods or services, an independent entity, typically a not-for profit corporation, is set up to manage the collaboration and transact business on behalf of the consortium members. An additional advantage of the honest broker model is that new collaboration projects between members of the consortium can be initiated and carried out within the general framework of agreed upon areas of collaboration, without requiring new individual project agreements. Model 5. Several examples of academic consortia were discussed at the workshop. These consortia represent perhaps the most familiar mechanism for cross-pharma collaboration and provide good examples of how precompetitive collaboration around focused problems can lead to important shared advances. While this approach is attractive, the sheer number of consortia devoted to pharmaceutically important scientific problems is very large, and each effort has its own protocols, payments, rules, and timelines, making the management of membership in multiple simultaneous consortia very complex. Model 6. While most of the models discussed at the CCR workshop are based on experience within pharma, there was also considerable discussion of models for precompetitive collaboration from other industries. The ‘shared lab in the middle’ is similar to the ‘honest broker’ model, but it utilizes permanent employees and physical laboratories. This approach is well advanced in the semiconductor and microelectronics industry where cross-industry collaborations on the development of enabling technologies are carried out in shared research facilities using a combination of postdoctoral researchers and visiting researchers from the various members of the consortium. Examples include Sematech, a U.S.-based R&D center to advance chip manufacturing, and the Interuniversity Microelectronics Center (IMEC) headquartered at the University of Leuven in Belgium. Interestingly, both organizations were created with government funding, but are now
self-sustaining with operating funds coming from membership fees and licensing income. Hybrid Model. Following the workshop, ongoing discussions led to the identification of the model illustrated in Figure 4 that combines the advantages of several models for precompetitive collaborations, while avoiding some of the pitfalls. Workshop participants were eager to gain the advantages offered by the ‘honest broker’ model with respect to the speed of initiating new collaborations under an umbrella agreement, and the greatly simplified ability of the honest broker to transact business with external parties on behalf of the members. Despite the existence of honest brokers for precompetitive collaborations in the area of quality, regulatory compliance, information technologies and data management, the lack of a group focusing on the important area of enabling technologies was identified as a key gap. The workshop participants were intrigued by the shared lab in the middle model, but wary of the loss of flexibility that investment in permanent employees and bricks and mortar laboratories could entail. While a number of valuable academic consortia were described, workshop participants were also wary of the one consortium/one problem model, that results in the need for each pharma company to manage membership in a number of simultaneous consortia, each with its own legal agreements, fees, and timelines. The hybrid model illustrated in Figure 4 allows multiple pharma companies to share in the benefit of precompetitive collaborations on several projects, with each project team sized for success and with each pharma involved in a manageable number of projects. In this model, precompetitive collaborations among a group of pharmaceutical companies are carried out within an honest broker framework with an umbrella agreement between all parties. Ideally, this agreement allows the companies to openly brainstorm ideas in the precompetitive space in order to define and approach the most important problems, while allowing vendors to ultimately patent and commercialize new precompetitive tools where appropriate. Potentially one of the existing honest brokers in the pharmaceutical space could be expanded to serve this role. Subgroups of companies focus on particular collaborations, e.g. companies 1−3 as the primary participants on collaboration A, companies 4−6 as the primary participants on collaboration B, etc., in order to keep each collaboration small and allow each company to focus on a small number of collaborations. Sharing the results from each collaboration and inviting limited input to each collaboration across all of the collaboration partners then allows each company to benefit from each of the collaborations while significantly investing in only one of the collaborations. A tiered contribution approach could allow for members to F
dx.doi.org/10.1021/op500023q | Org. Process Res. Dev. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Organic Process Research & Development
Concept Article
(8) Goldman, M. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2012, 91 (3), 418. (9) It should be noted that many of the technology goals of pharma align well with the NSF’s goals for sustainability, see: The National Science Foundation’s Investment in Sustainable Chemistry, Engineering, and Materials White, A. A.; Platz, M. S.; Aruguete, D. M.; Jones, S. L.; Madsen, L. D.; Wesson, R. D. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2013, 1 (8), 871−877. (10) (a) Lauber, M. B.; Stahl, S. S. ACS Catal. 2013, 3 (11), 2612. (b) Greene, J. F.; Hoover, J. M.; Mannel, D. S.; Root, T. W.; Stahl, S. S. Org. Process Res. Dev 2013, 17 (10), 1247. (11) The International Consortium for Innovation and Quality (IQ Consortium, www.iqconsortium.org) is a not-for-profit organization of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with the mission of advancing science-based and scientifically driven standards and regulations for pharmaceutical and biotechnology products worldwide. The group was founded in 2011 and to date has focused primarily on building consensus among members and regulatory agencies on issues relating to government regulation of the pharmaceutical industry. (12) The Pistoia Alliance (www.pistoiaalliance.org) is a not-for-profit, precompetitive alliance that aims to lower barriers to innovation by improving the interoperability of R&D business processes. The group was originally founded in 2009 by Astra Zeneca, Glaxo Smith Kline, Novartis, and Pfizer, and now includes membership from most pharma companies and a number of life science companies, vendors, publishers, and academic groups. To date, the group has focused on developing more uniform approaches for data and information technologies. (13) Center for Organic Particulate Systems (CSOPS, www. ercforsops.org), a cross-pharma, multi-university effort dedicated to modernizing pharmaceutical manufacturing. (14) The NSF Center for Selective C-H Activation (www.nsf-cchf. com), a complex multiparty collaboration between several academic groups and including a number of industrial partners (15) Synthesis and Solid State Pharmaceutical Cluster (www.ul.ie/ sspc/home). This center, funded by the SFI and industry, is a unique collaboration between 17 companies, 8 academic institutions, and 12 international academic collaborators. It is the largest research collaboration in Ireland within the pharmaceutical area. The SSPC carries out research ranging from molecule to medicine with the objective of gaining a better understanding of mechanisms and control processes and predicting outcomes for the efficient and environmentally sustainable production of safe medicines with an aim to build a strong pharmaceutical community and a pharma-friendly environment in Ireland. (16) (www.sematech.org) a US-based R&D center to advance chip manufacturing. (17) The Interuniversity Microelectronics Center (IMEC, www.imec. org) headquartered at the University of Leuven, Belgium.
participate and benefit at different levels, depending on level of interest or available resources, thus enabling the inclusion of smaller companies. Overall, this model could provide a useful and practical mechanism to facilitate the increased collaboration on precompetitive technologies that is clearly needed and wanted by the industry. Importantly, while this workshop focused on the collaborative development of enabling chemistry and chemical engineering technologies for pharma, this model could be extended to other technologies and other industries.
■
CONCLUSIONS AND THE PATH FORWARD The recent CCR workshop on precompetitive collaborations on enabling technologies for the pharmaceutical industry revealed widespread interest among participants from industry, academia, and government. Precompetitive collaboration was recognized as not only possible but also necessary to promote innovation and manage the cost of developing more efficient tools for R&D. The path forward requires improved mechanisms for synergistically collecting and prioritizing ideas for collaborations, and improved mechanisms for the collaborations themselves. We propose the hybrid model illustrated in Figure 4 as a mechanism to efficiently leverage ideas and resources for precompetitive collaborations, ideally across a significant portion of the pharmaceutical industry. Improved cross-pharma collaborations on precompetitive enabling technologies will increase innovation and efficiency, ultimately making the pharmaceutical industry more sustainable. This will enable each individual company to compete more effectively in the competitive landscape, and to overcome the common challenges facing the industry. Most importantly, increased innovation and efficiency in drug development will ultimately bring benefit to millions of patients and their families.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Authors
*E-mail:
[email protected] *E-mail: joel.m.hawkins@pfizer.com *E-mail:
[email protected] Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to Paul Mendez, Marc Donohue, and Jill Russell from the Council for Chemical Research for invaluable assistance in coordinating this workshop, to Gary Molander, for hosting the workshop on the University of Pennsylvania campus, and to all the workshop presenters and participants who contributed to a successful outcome.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Pain, E., Science Careers, Dec 9, 2011, 10.1126/science.caredit.a1100136. (2) Munos, B. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2009, 8, 959. (3) Pammolli, F.; Magazzini, L.; Riccaboni, M. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2011, 10, 428. (4) Although recent increases in New Molecular Entity approvals are noted from 2011 to 2013 Mullard, A. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2014, 13, 85. (5) June 12−13, 2013, http://www.ccrhq.org/collaborate/events/ precompetitive-collaborations (6) Hawkins, J. M.; Watson, T. J. N. Angew. Chem. 2004, 43, 3224. (7) http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/. G
dx.doi.org/10.1021/op500023q | Org. Process Res. Dev. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
