“open source pharma” !

legal, technical, organizational considerations

it’s inaccurate to call open source pharma open source…

but i’m ok with that.

it’s inaccurate to call open source pharma open source…

but i’m ok with that.

“open source”

open source is not: a magic spell, a verb, or a guarantee.

commons-based peer production

modular granular

integratable

regularly outperforms both the large “firm” and the “unorganized

market” in creating complex, stable software or cultural artifacts.

regularly fails at:

inside the firm, modular, granular, integratable.

outside the firm, lots of efforts within the chevrons.

some CBPP, some PP, some fee for service, some “artisan” open.

outside the firm, yet to demonstrate ability to achieve

modular, granular, integratable to create a submittable drug.

the resources required to make open source knowledge need

not be themselves open source…but they must be

commodities.

knowledge products that come off these platforms are

themselves rarely modular, granular, integratable.

there is a serious potential conflict between individual

privacy risks and open access to the data.

(from health records, .25% probability of re-identification

upon directed attack)

we don’t have a firm to coordinate this process.

which means we are the ones who must build the first version of the modern pharmaceutical system.

which means we must commit to: !

standard formats on our data. investment in annotation.

modularity in our tools. granularity in our tasks.

integration with each other.