When it comes to innovation, it can be tempting to take a very competitive stance and shield your data and information from your rivals.  A recent paper argues that this is an affliction that especially plagues the life science sector, with the problem resulting in worse outcomes for the whole industry.

“The result is shrinking pipelines, a wave of drug patent expirations ending in sudden drops in revenue, and poorly served public health,” the authors argue.  “The industry has abandoned entire programs in disease conditions where needs are growing, such as psychopharmacology.”

The paper suggests that there is no better example of this in action than the recent announcement by Pfizer that it’s scrapping attempts to find new treatments for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

All hail open innovation

The paper highlights how the technology industry has flourished through adopting an open approach to innovation.  The sector adopted this approach in large part due to the rise in Japan’s tech sector.  This prompted the creation of a research alliance, called SEMATECH, to develop microchips.  The alliance consisted of 14 chip makers and had government support.

“The SEMATECH story,” they explain, “affirms the transformative power of open innovation, with similar examples across the technology sector of companies drawing on the knowledge of their peers.”

Such cooperative approaches are nowhere near as prevalent in the life sciences sector however, with companies instead showing a more competitive spirit.  This is despite the tremendous need for better cooperation in the sector.

That’s not to say the sector isn’t investing in innovation.  Indeed, they’re one of the heaviest spenders on research and development.  Between 1995 and 2015, spending rose by 287%, to $58.8 billion, in the US alone.  Despite this, there hasn’t been a corresponding increase in the number of drugs finding their way to market.

Time to change

This apparent dysfunction in the way the sector innovates correlates with tremendous pressures placed on health systems around the world, who are struggling to cope with conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and mental health.

The paper outlines a couple of attempts to be more cooperative, namely the Biomarkers Consortium, established by the FDA and managed by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health; and the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, but neither initiative has really produced much yet.

The authors believe that a major hurdle to overcome is a cultural one, with companies often reluctant to share information with rivals for fear of giving them a competitive advantage.  It creates a winner-takes-all culture in the industry.

They do remain hopeful however, with projects like the Academic Drug Discovery Consortium supporting some 150 centers in 16 different countries around the world.

“The consortium’s rapid expansion highlights the need and, perhaps, the academic culture of knowledge sharing,” they conclude. “This culture puts the consortium closer to an open system, and repudiates the bias against sharing in the life sciences.”