BostonConfOct2011
From IALS Life Sciences University Network
Advances in the Life Sciences and Uniting Universities, Corporate and Government Partners.
Conference held at the University of Massachusetts
October 27-29th 2011
Professor Robert G. Price, M.D.,
Board IALS
King’s College London, UK
The Conference was divided into four themes namely ethics, collaboration, value added and funding in higher education. Welcoming remarks by Therese Murray emphasized the need for both industry and the university sector in Massachusetts to collaborate internationally as no one organisation is self sufficient in knowledge. She emphasized the strength of Massachusetts as having the 3rd largest economy in the USA based mainly on the high tech electronics and biotechnology sectors and the present of 13 Fortune 500 companies. She described a link with Universities in Northern Ireland and Finland as the way forward.
Dr Hammang (Pfizer) stated that Government alone cannot afford to pay for the research necessary for the development of new medicines. The current model shows the Government funding the majority of basic research while the Pharmaceutical companies fund the majority of clinical research. He emphasised that if investment in R & D is significant then it yields better outcomes. The improvement in life expectancy resulting from major medical advances has resulted in a different set of challenges resulting from the aging of the population. Pfizer response has been to reduce expenditure on the development of small molecules and while introducing new areas in nutrition, biologicals and vaccines.
Ethics
Dr Burchardt outlined the safety precautions taken during the three phases of drug development before considering the new area of regenerative medicine (Multistem). Four stages were identified namely vision, science, commercial and partnership if successful development was to be achieved. Interaction with the FDA at each stage is essential.
Dr Brownwich discussed the conflicts that can arise during the translational stage of research development when companies may fund part of the work. Using some older cases she described the potential hazards. Her approach was challenged form the audience on the basis that procedures are now much mare clearly stated and controls are much better to allow the university and academic full benefit from their work while not constraining the commercial exploitation of the investigation.
The final talk in the session (Dr Sturm) discussed the how successful integration makes for good healthcare systems. The roles of the provider, Pharma and funding sources were elaborated and the various ethical issues considered. The massive challenge of an ageing population and the possible responses to this were outlined.
Collaboration
The NIH roadmap initiative allowed Dr Zhang gain experience of collaboration in life sciences between the university, business and government sectors. The introduction of the Green chemistry programme by UMB this programme demonstrated how clusters involving chemical companies and universities enable more rapid product development to be achieved.
Dr Nicklauss discussed the role of the Massachusetts Life Science centre as a supercluster in the expanding life sciences industry of Massachusetts. Massachusetts is a global leader in Life sciences partly based on its strong university sector and easy communication with the rest of the world. An important aspects of its role is establishing cooperative research grants which accelerate “bench to bedside” added by a tax incentive programme. A key part of this programme is supporting workforce development in the real world by subsidising training if interns.
Stephan Kastner described the experience of completing a PhD in Industry and balancing the advantages of Universities and those offered by industry. He highlighted the advantages of Industry in that research work in industry was straightforward and open minded, easy exchange of know-how, access to patient samples and funding, embedded social and ethical commitment. Possible downsides were publication restriction, intellectual property rights and possible lack of flexibility in research.
Value added - exploiting University Research
The Provost of University of Massachusetts in Worcester ((Dr Flotte) discussed value of university research in innovation. He cited two examples involving collaboration with Liberia and India. The first assisted in the development of post conflict health care system and the second a monoclonal antibody to rabies. Among the constraints identified were US export controls and immigration issues for visiting clinicians and researchers from the developing world.
The management of successful regional clusters and there interaction with global networks (the US has 10) was discussed by Dr Levy. This approach allows specialisation within cluster nodes in global networks giving value added from uniqueness (scarcity), market power, technology, brands, entry barriers and distribution. Two examples were given – biofuels and clean tech.
In contrast the next speaker Dr Vasilyev compared the Institute for experimental the first strong in science but with few patient beds, the second strong in clinical but weaker in basic research medicine St Petersburg with the Pavlov Medical University. Collaboration between the two institutions is beginning with the exchange of molecular biology technology. Another potential weakness is the limited number of clinical disorders available for study. The inclusion of both institutions in a wider European cluster would be vary beneficial. However the formation of a local cluster in st Petersburg would add value to the research carried out.
Tripartite funding of R & D
Schumacher addressed the problem of how academia, government and industry can work together and described the approach used by Pressure BioSciences, Inc. (PBI). The mission of PBI is to develop cutting-edge PCT-based products. A consortium of over 25 Universities is involved. He itemised what Industry and academia can offer each other and the advantages of collaboration. Major advantages include product development, marketing and sales a form the industrial side while academia had experience, new technology publication. The advantages of a consortium is the availability of long term finance. He gave examples of Harvard catalyst LITT where translation of innovation from academia to industry has been successful while UMass-Boston (VDC) consortium helps found new companies.
Peter Mayer compared the funding of education in Germany with the US, UK and Korea. Ideally 2% of GDP should be spent on education but its 1% in the US and Germany 0.5% in the UK and Korea. The introduction of tuition fees would not be acceptable and funding from commerce and alumni is very low. The US system would be impossible in Germany. The UK at present is intermediate between US and Germany. He concluded that if progress is to be made then Germany should have a more relaxed discussion of the contribution by the private sector and the corporate sector.
The final presentation by Hannigan considered the relationship between entrepreneurship and academia. He itemised the role of academia emphasising the development of human capital, the creation of new technologies and the development of knowledge for the future. An example of a successful centre of excellence is MIT. For success it is necessary to create a successful partnership which cans promote the transfer of technology while promoting education policies to increase innovation. Funding should come from Federal agencies, private foundations and specialised sources of funds for entrepreneurship. The US government has recently past legalisation to enable entrepreneurship and commercialise new technologies.
POINTS ARISING OUT OF THE MEEETING
- Collaboration between Academia and industry will drive progress.
- It is essential that the collaboration uses the strengths of both parties and is flexible.
- Clusters of various sizes can be very effective and include international collaborations.
- There are major health problems arising from the aging population in the West and increasing populations in the East.
- All studies must work within defined ethical limits
- All speakers emphasised the need for collaboration as no single organisation has the expertise to deal with the application of modern science and medicine.
- Funding is a major issue. In R & D sufficient funds must be available to drive the project to a conclusion while in academia the increased costs of education are straining national budgets and there is a need to raise funding from various sources so that the total spend is about 2% of GDP.
RGP
