The Structural Genomics Consortium: A Knowledge Platform for Drug Discovery: A Summary.

The Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC) supports drug discovery efforts through a unique, open access model of public-private collaboration. This study presents the results of an independent evaluation of the Structural Genomics Consortium, conducted by RAND Europe with the Institute on Governance. The evaluation aimed to establish the role of the SGC within the wider drug discovery and PPP landscape, assessing the merits of the SGC open access model relative to alternative models of funding R&D in this space, as well as the key trends and opportunities in the external environment that may impact on the future of the SGC. It also established the incentives and disincentives for investment, strengths and weaknesses of the SGC's model, and the opportunities and threats the SGC will face in the future. This enabled us to assess the most convincing arguments for funding the SGC at present; important trade-offs or limitations that should be addressed in moving towards the next funding phase; and whether funders are anticipating changes either to the SGC or the wider PPP landscape. Finally, we undertook a quantitative analysis to ascertain what judgements can be made about the SGC's past and current performance track record, before unpacking the role of the external environment and particular actors within the SGC in developing scenarios for the future.

[1]  S. Wooding,et al.  The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research , 2011, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[2]  C. Begley,et al.  Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research , 2012, Nature.

[3]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Universities in National Innovation Systems , 2006 .

[4]  Elias G. Carayannis,et al.  Strategy, structure, and performance issues of precompetitive R&D consortia: insights and lessons learned from SEMATECH , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[5]  J. Henkel.  Selective revealing in open innovation processes: the case of embedded Linux (gekürzte Version) , 2006 .

[6]  K. Arrow.  Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[7]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[8]  E. Rand,et al.  Medical Research: What's It Worth? , 2008 .

[9]  D. Mowery,et al.  The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments? , 2004 .

[10]  A. Rainer.  The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Myths , 2014 .

[11]  B. Reid,et al.  Realising the Value of Open Innovation , 2012 .

[12]  R. Nelson.  Some Features of Research by Economists on Technological Change Foreshadowed by The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity , 2011 .

[13]  R. W. Hansen,et al.  The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. , 2003, Journal of health economics.

[14]  Reiko Aoki,et al.  Promoting Access to Intellectual Property: Patent Pools, Copyright Collectives, and Clearinghouses , 2008 .

[15]  Joachim Henkel,et al.  New ventures based on open innovation - an empirical analysis of start-up firms in embedded Linux , 2006, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[16]  Christopher G. Tate,et al.  Overcoming barriers to membrane protein structure determination , 2011, Nature Biotechnology.

[17]  Paul Nightingale,et al.  The myth of the biotech revolution. , 2004, Trends in biotechnology.

[18]  A. Hollis,et al.  New approaches to rewarding pharmaceutical innovation , 2011, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[19]  Carolyn Y. Woo,et al.  Technology sourcing and output of established firms in a regime of encompassing technological change , 2003 .

[20]  S. Athreye,et al.  Internationalization and technological leapfrogging in the pharmaceutical industry , 2009 .

[21]  Peter C. Bishop,et al.  The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques , 2007 .

[22]  B. Munos.  Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[23]  J. Marshall.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2004 .

[24]  Paul A. David,et al.  A TRAGEDY OF THE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ‘COMMONS’? Global Science, Intellectual Property and the Digital Technology Boomerang , 2005 .

[25]  V. Bush.  Science, the Endless Frontier , 1999, Science, the Endless Frontier.

[26]  Peter J. Lane,et al.  Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning , 1998 .

[27]  Paul Nightingale,et al.  Buying big into biotech: scale, financing, and the industrial dynamics of UK biotech, 1980-2009 , 2013 .

[28]  Louis Galambos,et al.  Pharmaceutical Firms and the Transition to Biotechnology: A Study in Strategic Innovation , 1998, Business History Review.

[29]  H. Chesbrough,et al.  Beyond High Tech: Early Adopters of Open Innovation in Other Industries , 2006 .

[30]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[31]  A. Davis,et al.  The entrepreneurial state: : debunking public vs. private sector myths , 2014 .

[32]  F. Pammolli,et al.  The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[33]  R. Henderson,et al.  Public-private interaction in pharmaceutical research. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  R. Nelson.  The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research , 1959, Journal of Political Economy.

[35]  C. Donovan,et al.  State of the art in assessing research impact: introduction to a special issue , 2011 .

[36]  D. Teece.  Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-How, and Intangible Assets , 1998 .

[37]  S. Wooding,et al.  Evaluating Grant Peer Review in the Health Sciences: A review of the literature , 2009 .

[38]  Teresa S. Waring,et al.  Open Source Software implementation in the UK public sector: Evidence from the field and implications for the future , 2005, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[39]  Joanna Chataway,et al.  The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI): Is it Getting New Science and Technology to the World's Neglected Majority? , 2006 .

[40]  S. Carney.  How can we avoid the productivity gap? , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[41]  Judy C. Shetler,et al.  Building Cooperation in a Competitive Industry: Sematech and the Semiconductor Industry , 1995 .

[42]  Rebecca Hanlin,et al.  Global health social technologies: reflections on evolving theories and landscapes , 2010 .

[43]  Robert Kneller,et al.  The importance of new companies for drug discovery: origins of a decade of new drugs , 2010, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[44]  R. Nelson.  The market economy, and the scientific commons , 2004 .

[45]  Franco Malerba,et al.  Innovation and market structure in the dynamics of the pharmaceutical industry and biotechnology: towards a history‐friendly model , 2002 .

[46]  M. Buxton,et al.  Estimating the economic value to societies of the impact of health research: a critical review. , 2004, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[47]  Joanna Owens.  2006 drug approvals: finding the niche , 2007, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[48]  J. Mathews.  Strategizing by firms in the presence of markets for resources , 2003 .

[49]  Paul Nightingale,et al.  The myth of the biotech revolution: An assessment of technological, clinical and organisational change , 2007 .

[50]  J. West,et al.  Challenges of Open Innovation: The Paradox of Firm Investment in Open-Source Software , 2006 .

[51]  D. Mowery.  The relationship between intrafirm and contractual forms of industrial research in American manufacturing, 1900-1940 , 1983 .

[52]  M. Heller,et al.  Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research , 1998, Science.

[53]  A. Towse,et al.  Public Private Partnerships for Research and Development: Medicines and Vaccines for Diseases of Poverty , 2002 .

[54]  P. Samuelson.  The Pure Theory of Public Expanditure , 1954 .

[55]  Tom Ling,et al.  Performance Audit Handbook , 2009 .

[56]  E. Ostrom,et al.  Public Goods and Public Choices , 2019, Alternatives for Delivering Public Services.

[57]  I. Kola,et al.  Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.