1 / 19

The New Alexandrians

The New Alexandrians. Presented by : Eric Havens, Sanusha Mathews, Mike Copciac. The Alexandrians. The Alexandrian Greeks attempted to collect all the books, all the history, great literature, plays, etc in one building.

vlora
Download Presentation

The New Alexandrians

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The New Alexandrians Presented by : Eric Havens, Sanusha Mathews, Mike Copciac

  2. The Alexandrians The Alexandrian Greeks attempted to collect all the books, all the history, great literature, plays, etc in one building. This building, “The Great Library of Alexandria” is considered by many to be the first major place of learning. Only recently did we pass the size The Great Library of Alexandria reached

  3. The New Alexandrians Companies like Google and librarians from schools such as Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford are scanning books by the thousands into digital media. The author predicts that “When this virtual library comes to fruition it will make the present Internet look like a secondhand bookshop”. The new alexandrians are individuals, companies, and organizations that recognize the power and importance of openness in today’s economy.

  4. The Science of Sharing Humanitity’s capacity to generate new ideas and knowledge is the source of art, science, innovation, and economic development. Firms are shifting from their old ways of “hoarding knowledge” towards a more collaborative structure

  5. Problems with the Traditional Scientific Publishing System The process is long. All papers are peer reviewed by two or more experts and they go through numerous revisions before it is accepted for publishing. It can take a year or longer to get published . The majority of published research today can only be accessed by paid subscribers. As subscription fees of increased, the research has become less accessible. Many people can get digital copies for virtually free, but publishers have been extremely cautious it doesn’t become like Napster. To remedy this, it suggested that the traditional system should be thrown out and a new web-based one should be implemented.

  6. The precompetitive knowledge commons • Human Genome Project • It is an international 15-year effort • Formally begun in October 1990 and completed in 2003 • To discover all the estimated 20,000-25,000 human genes and make them accessible for further biological study.

  7. The precompetitive knowledge commons • Due to massive distributed collaboration across institution , countries and disciplines scientist completed the Human Genome Project within 15 years • pharmaceutical firms collaborated abandoning their own proprietary projects, this was a watershed moment in Human Genome Project. • Due to this they were able to cut cost, accelerate innovation , create more wealth for share holders and ultimately help society to achieve benefits of Genomic research more quickly.

  8. Big pharma fights back • In 1995 Merck pharmaceuticals and gene sequencing center created Meck gene index, a public database of gene sequences. • Merck released 15,000 human gene sequences into the public domain. • 1998 Merck and Washington university had published over 800,000 gene sequences.

  9. Big pharma fights back • Dr. Alan Williamson former wise president of research strategy with Merck says that ”Merck’s approach is the most efficient way to encourage progress in genomic research and its commercial application. By giving all research workers unrestricted access to the resources of the Merck gene index, the probability of discovery will increase. The basic knowledge we and others gain will lead ultimately to new therapeutics for a wide range of disease, while providing opportunities for investment in future gene-based product development”

  10. Big pharma fights back • In 1999, SNP Consortium was established as a collaboration of 11 pharmaceutical companies, a nonprofit institution, and 2 IT firms. • Their goal was to hasten a new era of “personalized medicine” in which treatment is tailored to an individual’s unique genetic profile. • At the completion of the project in 2001, 1.8 million SNPs are mapped. • Scientists are currently using the mapped SNPs to cure common but hard to treat diseases.

  11. Value of collaborative discovery • To produce valuable end product to market • To avoid antitrust problem • Speeding the industry towards personalize medicine • Less time to create new medicine • Low production cost

  12. Open source drug discovery • In 2003, FDA approved 21 NMEs, of which only 9 were designated as “significant improvements” over existing drugs • Between 1995 and 2002 US based pharmaceutical companies double their R&D expenditure, to about 32 billion.

  13. Open source drug discovery • There are many concerns to address • The productivity of large pharmaceutical innovation has decreased • Lack the ability to properly predict the side effects of new compounds. • Lack of good ways to monitor and assess the new medicine once they are in the market • Pricing model have become untenable

  14. The open source opportunity in the drug discovery Differences when comparing with software development • Software production is easy to break up into bit size pieces but drug development is harder to parse out and require access to expensive laboratory instruments • Software projects can be completed in months but drug discovery will take 10-15yrs • Making software invention commercially viable is easy and inexpensive but biological inventions take years of clinical trials and healthy dose of know-how to reach that point

  15. The open source opportunity in the life science • Similarities when comparing with software development • Both communities share similar goals • Driven by similar motivation • They share strong community ethics such as reciprocal sharing and collaborate discovery • People who contribute to both collaborative projects are either paid to do so directly or do so in their spare times

  16. Rethinking Industry-University Partnerships Case for Partnerships: Knowledge becomes stale without advancement in basic sciences R&D activities must be fast and efficient to earn a good ROI Success breeds complacency – makes a firm vulnerable

  17. Intel’s Open University Network Intel established research labs adjacent to many universities Labs consist of Intel and University researchers Knowledge shared instantaneously Competition breeds quick results Promising research leads to the ability to fund multiple projects

  18. Making the Most of University Partnerships Use industry-university partnerships to shake up product roadmaps Make collaboration win-win Deepen and broaden collaboration across research communities Keep the science open and the application proprietary Learn from “proxy” customers early and often

  19. Laying the Public Foundation New Alexandrians understand the value created by collaborative communities Current intellectual property system and laws do not promote invention and openness The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 extended patent eligibility to public research orgs Must achieve a balance Need knowledge to generate new knowledge Need action by firms and nongovernmental organizations

More Related