Nature Biotechnology replies:

We continue to urge the IMI governing board to do more to engage SMEs in setting the agendas for IMI projects. Success in recruiting SMEs into projects is different from providing SMEs with a voice at the table that can contribute to setting the innovation agenda. We recognize this is difficult—for one thing, people at SMEs very often don't have time to devote employees to outside projects, such as IMI. Our editorial attempted to highlight the problem that the innovative agenda of EFPIA members may not be as broad as the innovative agenda put forward by less established and smaller companies who seek to disrupt conventional approaches. For example, it is clear that cells derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells offer considerable potential in drug discovery screens and safety assessment, and this has been demonstrated by the investment by the pharmaceutical industry in these approaches in recent years. But what about the potential of such products as experimental therapies in themselves? Clearly, a focus for many SMEs and academic groups but not a major focus for many major pharmaceutical companies. Perhaps IMI could play a role in moving such unconventional approaches forward, especially if the funding and expertise from EU and EFPIA could be used to help SMEs focus their efforts to address the formidable manufacturing, regulatory and reimbursement issues that cell therapies face before reaching the market.