Science & Innovation 2014: Foresighting Trajectories for Advanced Innnovative Technologies
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•406 views
The UK currently faces an unprecedented array of innovation opportunities. Many important initiatives are being designed to support the translation of basic science into practical outcomes, as well as to ensure we capitalise on the economic and societal benefit from the research we fund. To maximise this impact, there is a need for a radically new approach to innovation support from the social science and policy communities – one that helps us better understand the factors that determine which products and processes reach the marketplace, over what timescales, and in which industry sectors, regions or countries. Innogen works to effectively foresight future outcomes of specific policies, regulatory initiatives, innovation support mechanisms and investment decisions, and identify gaps in regulatory capacity to be responsive to the rapid pace of innovation in advanced technology sectors. This seminar will explore our approach to the analysis of innovation generation, focusing particularly on where our ideas are having most traction in innovation and policy communities.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (6)
Ähnlich wie Science & Innovation 2014: Foresighting Trajectories for Advanced Innnovative Technologies
Ähnlich wie Science & Innovation 2014: Foresighting Trajectories for Advanced Innnovative Technologies (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Science & Innovation 2014: Foresighting Trajectories for Advanced Innnovative Technologies
- 1. Foresighting Trajectories for Advanced Innovative Technologies Professor Joyce Tait (Edinburgh) Professor Joanna Chataway (RAND, OU) Dr Michele Mastroeni (RAND, Edinburgh) 1
- 2. Foresighting Future Value Chains Professor Joyce Tait 2
- 3. 3
- 4. 4 Innovation Ecosystem Business Model 5 Business Model 4 Business Model 3 Business Model 2 Business Model 1 Value Chain Regulation Regional Innovation Policy Scenario 2 Stakeholder engagement IP Regimes Conceptual scenarios (STRATIS) (AGIT) (RISE)(CSE) Quantitative scenarios Funding Models RRI Markets
- 5. 5
- 7. Joanna Chataway Perspectives on public private partnerships health innovation A focus on the SGC
- 8. Health innovation public private partnerships are growing in number, diversifying in nature and are a major feature of the policy landscape UK Life Science Strategy put partnerships and collaborations at the heart of government policy: Strategy for UK Life Sciences: Building a Life Sciences Ecosystem Innovation Health and Wealth: Accelerating adoption and diffusion in the NHS (includes opening up NHS patient data) TSB and research councils working to promote partnership Public private partnerships: a growing phenomenon
- 9. SGC at a glance A public private partnership that supports the discovery of medicines through open access research Based in Oxford and Toronto, operating since 2004 Funded by Wellcome Trust, Canadian government, and 9 leading pharma companies, 20M $/year currently Open Access Policy Promptly placing results, reagents and know-how in the public domain (no patents)
- 10. SGC’s open innovation model in early stage drug discovery Public-Private Partnership Public Domain Proprietary Tools & Basic Knowledge Discovery and Exploration Drug Discovery and Development Facilitated by access to increased amount of information in the public domain Weigelt J. EMBO Reports 10:941-5 (2009)
- 11. SGC’s knowledge production 1564 protein structures deposited in the Protein Data Bank 654 peer reviewed publications 128 biological probes 19 epigenetic chemical probes
- 12. SGC as a model for investing in knowledge with multiple incentives for investment Open access Collaborative research opportunities De-risk emerging areas of science Linking with strategic initiatives Rapid and efficient research processes
- 13. De-risking new areas of protein structure science
- 14. However there are disincentives to investment Unprotected intellectual property (private sector) Limited opportunities for spillover effects (public sector)
- 15. However there are disincentives to investment Unprotected intellectual property (private sector) Limited opportunities for spillover effects (public sector) ‘The SGC needs to show evidence of wider benefits in the form of economic benefits, spillovers and encouraging investment. The science is good but the SGC hasn’t catalysed the development of a cluster in the way [we] hoped.’
- 16. SGC specific conclusions The SGC is successful and should be maintained The public sector: Ensures open access Allows the SGC to remain innovative The private sector: Provides the SGC’s industrial edge, making it efficient and effective
- 17. Thinking more broadly…. Open access platforms shown to be viable in the pharmaceutical sector but the question is will open access challenge existing conventions more broadly This model challenges pre-conceived ideas about the way health research and pharma actors must work together Social technology experiments that bridge public and private sectors in new ways may be important to the future of drug discovery but will they and should they challenge broader institutional norms? Do we need to think harder about what sorts of partnerships are appropriate for different contexts and objectives? What kind of research do we need to determine this? An RoI study that looks at the advantages and disadvantages of open access against IP based pathways in different contexts?
- 20. Mission-Oriented Research Pulling together to overcome obstacles 20 Michele Mastroeni, RAND Europe
- 21. Difficulties of bringing innovation forward Many of the problems are not technical; they may be social, political or economic These are important issues because some of the innovations are meant to offer solutions to serious problems faced by society How can the key organizations and actors be encouraged to pull together to deliver socially beneficial innovation? 21
- 22. Missions or Grand Challenges Some have called for a return to mission- oriented research to overcome some of these problems; but must address: Interdisciplinarity Cross-departmental coordination and coherence Multi-level governance Technology convergence or fusion Cross-sector collaboration Long-term time horizons 22
- 23. Innogen Approach A meta-heuristic that creates an air of collaboration and willingness to spot and work through issues that need addressing Need to determine how to: Narrow and define broad challenges to allow for realistic efforts Identify and involve different stakeholders Identify and influence that institutional changes necessary 23
- 25. www.innogen.ac.uk For further details, please contact Elisabeth Barlow at elisabeth.barlow@ed.ac.uk 25
Hinweis der Redaktion
- One thing Innogen and Rand Europe have both worked on a lot in recent years is the changing way in which public and private sectors are working together. In health innovation the increase in volume of scope of co-operation is related to falling productivity of research, changing nature of regulation, increasingly intensive use of data in health innovation and other changes in innovation contexts.
- Partnerships involving public and private organisations and institutions are an important part of the effort to move forward stratified and personalised medicine. The 2011 UK government Life Science policy based on the two reports identified in this slide is an example of this – both reports are based on an assumption that public and private sectors have to work in different kinds of partnerships and collaborations to both increase the pace and the effectiveness of health innovation. The 2012 review of the way in which the strategy was working was very much constructed around the achievements and challenges in encouraging productive working between public and private sectors. So there has been a lot of experimentation in this space but surprisingly little ex ante or ex post evaluation. And there is little to go on when we are thinking about what various PPPs might offer in more strategic terms. I want to talk about an evaluation that we have recently completed of a unique public private partnership in drug discovery. I
- SGC = Catalyst, accelerator and vehicle for effective collaboration (through an open access approach – open window…) In their own words The SGC catalyses research in new areas of human biology and drug discovery by focusing explicitly on less well-studied areas of the human genome . The SGC accelerates research in these new areas by making all its research output available to the scientific community with no strings attached, and by creating an open collaborative network of scientists in hundreds of universities around the world and in nine global pharmaceutical companies. Together, this network of academic and industry scientists is driving a new scientific and drug discovery ecosystem whose primary aim is to advance science and is less influenced by personal, institutional or commercial gain. SGC is based at Toronto and Oxfrod but has over 500 collaborators in public and private sectors primarily in Europe, the US and Latin America.
- SGC works at industrial scale. Reach – SGC’s international network of researchers has enabled over 500 scientists to co-publish with the SGC and these represent 17 different countries. In addition, since 2007, the SGC has distributed over 1200 clones to a wide variety of academic researchers and over 200 to industry. (Figures from 2006 show clones were sent to both public (37) and private (9) sectors in multiple countries (8) in phase 1. ) Over half (59%) of scientists surveyed stated that their research had led to improved public engagement with science. Different routes to this kind of impact were identified and included public lectures, teaching activities, public engagement including radio broadcasts, museum exhibits and so on. The point here is that although SGC is praised for its focus and ‘industrial model’ of research, it does also contribute in social impact terms. SGC has led to two spin out companies Compared to similar organisations such as RIKEN and PSI, the SGC appears to be competitive in a cost per structure calculation
- Starting with the SGC as a model for investing in knowledge, we found there were multiple incentives for investment in the SGC across both public and private funders including those here. Our evaluation showed that the perception is that open access is a real incentive for investment because of what it can unlock in the way the science is conducted. It enables efficient and reproducible research, helps to avoid MTAs and bureaucracy, create economic advantages in pooling resources. We know this from the interviews that we did with private sector interviewees in particular. Rapid and efficient – private sector funders think that the openess and focus on delivery of science they can use (almost a 100% reproducibility) De-risking – joint efforts in areas of protein research (which I will say a bit a more about in moment)
- However, whilst important to de-risking, collaboration in and of itself probably wouldn’t be sufficient to encourage a move into new areas of science. This graph shows that SGC has indeed been successful in broadening out the number of proteins that are the focus of research. Here the red line shows the publications according to different kinds of human proteins, whereas the blue lines show where SGC’s focus has been – it is clearly covering a broader array of structures. Our evaluation confirms this and one key factor in explaining this is that SGC funding does not depend on traditional peer review. Peer review tends to be a conservative force that creates tight focus around small numbers of fashionable and better known areas of science.
- Questions about the need for sustained public funding from the public sector (and long-term funding commitments raise questions about opportunity costs) Five private sector investors saw unprotected intellectual property as a difficulty and disincentive to investment. This was mainly due to the difficulties of securing ‘buy-in’ in their companies. Others pointed out that although it wasn’t currently a disincentive it was source of constant discussion with legal teams Lack of IP was seen by three researchers as a disincentive to small firm engagement A number of interviewees thought that problems might be short term – the direction of travel is in the direction of open access with one interviewee saying that in the near future there would be a model of drug discovery with no IP until phase 2 trails.
- Five private sector investors saw unprotected intellectual property as a difficulty and disincentive to investment. This was mainly due to the difficulties of securing ‘buy-in’ in their companies. Others pointed out that although it wasn’t currently a disincentive it was source of constant discussion with legal teams Lack of IP was seen by three researchers as a disincentive to small firm engagement A number of interviewees thought that problems might be short term – the direction of travel is in the direction of open access with one interviewee saying that in the near future there would be a model of drug discovery with no IP until phase 2 trails.
- Public sector: why is it reluctant: de-risking; SGC falls between public sector funders.