1
Eric G. Campbell, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Harvard Medical School
Massachusetts General Hospital
Commercialization in Academe: Lessons from the Life Sciences
2
The Plan
Thesis
Frequency of Relationships
Benefits of Relationships
Risks of Relationships
Implications for Policy and Management
3
ThesisAcademic industry relationships and commercialization are fundamental to the modern life science economy. They cannot and should not be prohibited. But their benefits should not be exaggerated, nor their risks minimized or ignored. These relationships must be disclosed, monitored and managed in a manner that protects the investments and the integrity of involved individuals, institutions and science in general. Failure to do so could result in loss of public confidence and support for the research enterprise—a priceless resource whose integrity and independence are critical to the future of the scientific endeavor.
4
Data Sources:
• Surveys – 1985 -- top 50 universities (biotechnology faculty)– 1995 -- US life science companies– 1995 -- top 50 universities (faculty)– 1996 -- all medical schools (faculty)– 2000 -- all medical school (geneticists and life
scientists)– 2000 -- all medical schools (faculty)– 2003 -- case studies at 4 universities
• Other sources from general literature
5
Academic industry relationships and commercialization are fundamental to the modern
life science economy: Faculty AIRs
7
28
43 46
80
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Equity Research$ Gifts Consult Any of these
% o
f A
cade
mic
Lif
e Sc
ient
ists
6
Institutional AIRs
– Departments funded by companies• MGH-Hoechst created genetics department
• Harvard Medical School and Dupont
• Washington University and Monsanto
• Yale and Bristol Meyers
– Endowed chairs– Donated Equipment (eg. MRIs, CTs, etc)– University owned equity
7
Company Participation
38
59
88 90
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Training $ Research $ Consultants AnyRelationships
% o
f L
ife
Scie
nce
Com
pani
es
8
But their benefits should not be exaggerated, nor their risks minimized or ignored:
• Academic Benefits – Research Funding—1996 industry provided
12% of all research academic Life Science research funding
9
Faculty Benefits
66%60%
49%
34%29%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Less red tape Increasedopp. forstudents
Increaseddept. prestige
Salaryincreases
Helped inpromotion
% o
f F
acul
ty w
ith
Indu
stry
$
10
No. ofPublications
Teachingtime (hr)
No. ofService
Activities
PublicationTrendsScore
PublicationInfluence
Score
adjusted mean
AIRs
Yes 14.6 16.9 2.3 4.2 1.2
No 10.1** 16.6 1.8** 2.1** 1.2
*The means have been adjusted by multivariate analysis of variance to control for differencesdue to academic rank, years in profession, sex, total research funding, or clinical department.**P<0.05 for the comparison with the subgroup receiving industrial support.
Increased Faculty Academic Productivity
11
AIRS Appliedfor a
patent
PatentIssued
Patentlicensed
TradeSecret
Prod.underreview
Prod. onthe
market
Start-upCompany
Yes 42.0% 25.0% 18.5% 14.5% 26.7% 26.1% 14.3%
No 24.0% 12.6% 8.7% 4.7% 5.5% 10.8% 6.0%
All comparisons between the subgroup with industrial support and the subgroup without such support weresignificant at the p<.05 level using multivariate logistic regression analysis.
Increased Faculty Commercial Productivity
12
Industry Benefits
56%53%
37%
29%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Keep staff current New productideas
Recruiting Invent newproducts
% o
f Spo
nsor
ing
Com
pani
es
13
Risks of these AIRs:• AIRs may “…. burden university administration
and divert the faculty. Graduate students may be drawn into projects in ways that sacrifice their education for commercial gain. Research performed with an eye towards profit may lure investigators into conflicts of interest or cause them to practice forms of secrecy that hamper scientific progress. Ultimately, corporate ties may undermine the university’s reputation for objectivity.”--Derek Bok, President Harvard University
14
Challenges:
• Reduced Faculty Productivity
• Secrecy/Data Withholding
• Alter the Outcomes of Research
15
Reduced Academic Productivity
Variable No. ofPublications
Teachingtime (hr)
No. ofService
Activities
PublicationTrendsScore
PublicationInfluence
Score
adjusted mean
Amount of industrialsupport (% ofresearch budget) 1-33 16.8 17.7 2.8** 5.0 1.3
34-66 16.4 19.3 2.2 5.3 1.2
67-100 12.1** 15.8 2.1 2.3** 1.0**
All respondents 11.3 16.5 1.9 2.7 1.2
*The means have been adjusted by multivariate analysis of variance to control for differencesdue to academic rank, years in profession, sex, total research funding, or clinical department.**P<0.05 for the comparison with both subgroups receiving different levels of industrialsupport.
16
Industry Secrecy: Students• 57% of companies with AIRs reported that
confidential, proprietary information sometimes or often emerges from their sponsorship of graduate students.
• 80% of companies with AIRs require students and fellows to keep research information confidential.
17
Industry Secrecy : Faculty
• 82% of companies require academic researchers to “keep information confidential to allow for filing of a patent application.”
• 58% typically require academics to keep information confidential for more than six months.
18
Faculty Secrecy
27.20%
14.00%
16.50%
4.70%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Delay > 6 months Trade Secret
Per
cent
age
of F
acul
ty
Industry Funded
Non-Industry Funded
Blumenthal et; al., 1996
19
20
These relationships must be disclosed, monitored and managed in a manner that protects the investments and the integrity of involved
individuals, institutions and science in general.
• Disclosure-Minimal acceptable response (can’t manage what you don’t know about)
• Review-Develop common set of standards for what is acceptable and what is not
• Manage- Develop mechanisms for appropriate management of problematic relationships
• Ban-Some relationships might be banned• Ignore—Eg. Universities pay virtually no attention to
consulting
21
Actors in the Debate
• Individual Scientists
• Universities
• Professional Associations
• Professional Journals
• Government Agencies
22
Failure to manage these relationships
• Increased federal regulations
• Increased secrecy in science
• Loss of public belief in the integrity of the academic research enterprise
• Less willingness of patients to participate in clinical research
23
Disclosure
• Funding from:– The National Institutes of Health – The Commonwealth Fund– The Greenwall Foundation Bioethics Program
Top Related