Alliance Offers Unique Model For Research Collaborators

A major academic research center and three private companies are touting their recently announced functional-genomics consortium as the first of its kind. Officials from the participating entities as well as industry analysts are unsure whether the partnership will inspire similar deals, and they differ on whether it will launch a trend whose net result is more jobs for scientists. DANGER? Dorin Schumacher of the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research warns of a "non- peer-review research funding process." The participants in the consortium are the Whitehead Institute/Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Genome Research in Cambridge, Mass.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. of New York; Affymetrix Inc. of Santa Clara, Calif.; and Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Cambridge. Under the deal, announced in late April, the private companies will contribute a total of $8 million per year for five years, as well as some of their own scientists and resources, to explore how to transform the results of human genome research into potential drugs and treatments. The consortium will be based at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. The research conducted by the consortium's 40 scientists will be investigator-initiated, and they will retain the rights to publish their results within 60 days. The brief delay will allow the companies, which have the licensing rights to any discoveries, to file for patents. Academic-industrial collaborations are hardly novelties anymore, and it is not uncommon for one company to form a joint venture with another. But what makes this consortium unique, say observers, is the number of firms involved. Further, having that trio fund basic research at a single academic site is quite rare. "It's a very forward-looking, open-minded kind of thing," remarks Eric S. Lander, the scientist who will lead the consortium's research efforts. Lander, a member of the Whitehead Institute, director of the Whitehead/MIT Center for Genome Research, and a professor of biology at MIT, adds: "This arose of necessity, because all of the pieces to pursue functional genomics well were in several different hands. This arose as a natural discussion among individuals thinking about similar things with different perspectives and tools." Whether the novelty of this particular multicompany alliance will inspire the formation of other, similar ventures is a matter of debate. Even those who applaud the idea say putting it into practice is a challenge. PRACTICAL CONCERNS: PaineWebber's Stelios Papadopoulos points out that consortia such as the Whitehead's are difficult to arrange. Among those who doubt the Whitehead consortium will be copied is Stelios Papadopoulos, a managing director and head of the health-care investment banking group at PaineWebber Inc. of New York. "It is not because the concept does not make sense. It is because putting together groups of companies to work for a common purpose is very difficult from a practical point of view. It's a competitive industry, and it's difficult to find companies with enough complementary pieces [to] bring into an alliance." At the same time, those pieces must be of comparable quality and not compete directly with one another. SINGULAR SENSATION: Bristol-Myers Squibb's Marilyn Hartig believes the combination of factors that led to the consortium is "unique." Concurring is Marilyn Hartig, Bristol-Myers Squibb's vice president for external science and technology. "For that combination [of partners], I'd be a little bit hesitant to say you're going to see very many of them. To me this was a unique combination of three corporate partners who all had different but valuable strengths to bring to an area of technology along with an academic group that had a different but valuable strength to bring." It would be "difficult to find" a similar combination here, she believes. Lander disagrees, saying similar alliances are probable because they are less complex to organize-at least from the researchers' angle. "They represent an interesting model. They are less complicated from the academic point of view because [they are] not tied uniquely to a single funder, which I think has tremendous advantages. It represents true collaboration with scientists in academia and scientists in industry because there's a give and take of ideas." Stephen Fodor, president and chief executive officer of Affymetrix, calls the consortium "a very innovative arrangement" that represents a "paradigm shift." He believes its potential for duplication depends on its success. "I would hope that this is the type of deal you'll see repeated many times. I will guess that it will be, but we're going to have to wait and see how successful it is." 'Grandiose Hopes' Vs. 'Clever Scientists' The lack of consensus on whether the Whitehead consortium will foster similar deals is mirrored in observers' opinions of the implications of this alliance-in particular, the question of how it will affect the job situation for scientists. "I wouldn't characterize it as changing the outlook for jobs. The job market is huge compared to any one program," declares Lander. Asked whether this venture would change the nature of industrial-academic collaborations, he replies: "Those are grandiose hopes. The goals of the program are to do great science and develop great tools." Nevertheless, Lander comments that "finding effective ways for industry and academia to collaborate really is a very positive sign." He characterizes the consortium as an attempt "to get the best out of both worlds without compromising the principles of either. Wherever creative models are available, there are more opportunities for jobs for more people." SENDING A MESSAGE: Mark Levin of Millennium contends the alliance is "a clear sign" to academic researchers that working with industry is good. Mark Levin, Millennium's president and chief executive officer, also believes the implications of the deal are good for job-seekers. "If I were a [new] Ph.D. or a postdoc, it tells me that industry has a lot of outstanding science to offer, and that I might consider joining industry. If I go into academia, I should be considering a relationship with industry; they're becoming more well-accepted. The consortium is going to be growing, and there should be positions there I should consider." According to Levin, the Whitehead's status as "a world-renowned institute" sends a message: "It's a clear sign from academia that working with industry is good, and forming consortiums is good, and both sides have a lot to offer." CREATING DEMAND: Consultant Peter Feinstein sees positive employment implications in the Whitehead deal. Peter Feinstein, the chairman of Feinstein Kean Partners Inc., a Cambridge, Mass., biotechnology industry consulting firm, agrees. He believes that technology transfer-a goal of the consortium-leads to jobs, economic growth, and increases in the delivery of discoveries to the public, making it "critical to the national economy." "Speeding up the commercialization of the [Human] Genome Project is very valuable to society. . . . Anything that accelerates that, in an orderly way-which this definitely does-that's great. . . . On the institutional side, it creates a demand for scientists who are productive. The income being paid to top research scientists right now is quite high. More of these jobs could be created. This creates more of those opportunities." Some see other positive implications of the deal. "There is a subtle underlying message here: Clever academic scientists are beginning to appreciate that alliances with commercial enterprises may in fact be extremely efficient mechanisms in order to promote the dissemination of otherwise 'pure' research-type academic knowledge," contends Papadopoulos. Participants in the consortium believe their numbers minimize the risk. They emphasize the need to maintain open lines of communication and say that regularly scheduled meetings and the presence of scientists from all four partners should facilitate that. In addition, they say that proprietary rights are not their main focus; rather, they are seeking to move basic research forward via publishable work. "As long as we put in the effort to be a good partner, I think we'll get that, which is why I don't think the risks will be very great," Bristol-Myers Squibb's Hartig notes. "We want discoveries to be made," Affymetrix's Fodor states simply. "They will validate the model of this consortium." While participants in the alliance cheerfully talk of a risk-free partnership, outside observers warn of issues that must be faced. "The largest issue is how you prioritize investment and activities when, ostensibly, each individual member of the alliance may have a different agenda," states PaineWebber's Papadopoulos. "It represents a challenge." However, he is quick to point out that the participants are "three truly first-class companies. . . . If anybody can work out an alliance meaningfully, these . . . can and will." Biotech analyst Feinstein cautions the Whitehead Institute to monitor closely the various relationships in the consortium to ensure that conflicts of interest are avoided and intellectual freedom maintained. SPREAD OUT: Whitehead's Eric Lander says genomics research tools are divided among many different institutions. "With three companies, you have to have a clear relationship and a clear stating of objectives," Feinstein states. "One thing you have to worry about is that some companies-particularly large companies-need secrecy. That all should be dealt with in the institution's policies. That's always an anxiety, that the corporate interests will want to have trade secrets and the scientific community doesn't." However, he does observe that since "patenting is done rigorously and quickly," the danger of keeping corporate secrets may not apply to these three companies. In addition, he believes that Whitehead officials are well aware of the need to keep tabs on things. "You can think of what the downsides could be, but it's hard to look at it as a negative in itself. There are certain hypothetical downsides. It's a question of the institution being aware of them and managing around them." According to Dorin Schumacher, the chairman of the board of the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research in St. Simons Island, Ga., the three companies' support of work at just a single place puts them in the position of funding Whitehead research proposals without being able first to review them. "There's a risk for the companies, I would think, in having a noncompetitive, non-peer-review research funding process. That's not unusual for one company that decides to fund a particular university research project, but where they're putting this much money in, it just concentrates a lot in one place." The consortium partners dismiss such concerns. "It isn't, in some respects, different from any other deal in which the deal is founded on your analysis of the interests of the parties and what they do bring to the deal, which is a past track record of being excellent at what they do," contends Hartig. Levin adds: "Based on people's success in the past, we're very comfortable with the forming of the institute." Analysts also warn the Whitehead that a deal of this magnitude could influence the institute to alter its research focus somewhat. "Institutions have to take certain steps to ensure the values they have are preserved," Feinstein says. "In the larger sense, this is a very valuable type of event, a very valuable model. We've seen other models where institutions have made deals with private interests, [in which] the private company has too much say in what's done." An enthusiastic Lander insists that regardless of industrial support, the Whitehead will remain true to its research roots. "It's scientific collaboration," he says of the consortium. "I've heard everything from 'This is some corporate entity,' which it isn't, to 'It's going to do industrial research,' which it isn't. It's all investigator-initiated research. There's an absolute right to publication. It represents extending the community but not changing the community involved in any way. . . . Here at the Whitehead, we have one culture, and that's not going to change." Overall, according to Schumacher, the results are likely to be positive. "It sounds like the companies want to get in on the ground floor of the research rather than wait until the institute comes out with something [on its own]. I think that's a good thing. The research moves faster from laboratory on to marketplace."

Alliance Offers Unique Model For Research Collaborators

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of