Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Outlook
  • Published:

Finding improved medicines: the role of academic–industrial collaboration

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume 4, pages 891–897 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

This paper reviews models of academic–pharmaceutical industry collaboration and debates the value of such partnerships so that those contemplating an alliance can reflect a priori on the purpose, nature and process that will provide a constructive outcome. The scope is confined to the biomedical discipline, because collaborations in other fields, such as physics and engineering, have not suffered as a result of the concerns associated with biomedicine.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Who really contributes to the making of innovative drugs?
Figure 2: Original reports published in Nature Medicine, the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2003 and 2004 were scored on funding and/or support source.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ross, R. Academic research and industry relationships. Clin. Investigat. Med. 9, 269–272 (1986).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Blumenthal, D. Academic–industrial relationships in the life sciences. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 2452–2459 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Weiner, C. Patent and academic research: historical case studies. Sci . Technol. Human Values 12, 50–62 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Swann, J. Co-operative Research in the 20th Century America (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Angell, M. Excess in the pharmaceutical industry. CMAJ 171, 1451–1453 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kassirer, J. P. These two make quite a team. Washington Post B1,B5 (2004).

  7. Triggle, D. Patenting the sun: enclosing the scientific commons and transforming the university — ethical concerns. Drug Dev. Res. 63, 139–149 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Washburn, J. University, Inc: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education (Basic Books, New York, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K. S., Stoto, M. A. & Wise, D. University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: implications for the university. Science 232, 1361–1366 (1986).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mainschein, J. Why collaborate? J. Hist. Biol. 26, 167–183 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pfizer Public Medical & Academic Partnerships (MAP) Grants [online], <http://www.promisingminds.com/GrantsProgType.aspx?ProgID=405&ProgAreaID=22&ProgTypeID=4> (2005).

  12. Roche Postdoctoral Fellowships [online], <http://paloalto.roche.com/careers/PostDocsFellow.html> (2001).

  13. Roche Symposium for Leading Chemists of the Next Decade <http://euroweb.roche.com/symposium/index.htm> (2005).

  14. Roche Symposium for Leading Bioscientists of the Next Decade http://euroweb.roche.com/biosymposium/ (2005).

  15. MIT Industrial Liason Program [online], <http://ilp-www.mit.edu/display_page.a4d?key=H1> (2004).

  16. Strathclyde Institute for Drug Research [online], <http://www.sidr.org/> (2005).

  17. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT and Amgen announce biological research agreement [online], <http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1994/amgen-0330.html> (2005).

  18. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. How to get funding. [online], <http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/fellowships/Welcome.html> (2005).

  19. National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC Industry Fellowships [onlien], <http://www.ro.mq.edu.au/fund/nhmrc/IndustryFellow/indflyer.pdf> (2002).

  20. Scripps Research Institute. NIH funds Scripps Research–Novartis collaboration to target new treatments for depression and nicotine addiction [online], <http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20031208/markou.html> (2005).

  21. Genetech, Inc. Corporate overview [online], <http://www.gene.com/gene/about/> (2005).

  22. Moses, H. & Martin, J. B. Academic relationships with industry: a new model for biomedical research. JAMA 285, 933–935 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Council on Governmental Relations.The Bayh–Dole Act: A Guide to the Law and Implementing Regulations [online], <http://www.cogr.edu/docs/Bayh_Dole.pdf> (1999).

  24. Krimsky, S. & Baltimore, D. The ties that bind or benefit. Nature 283, 130–131 (1980).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bearn, A. G. The pharmaceutical industry and academe: partners in progress. Am. J. Med. 71, 81–88 (1981).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Molinoff, P. B. Common to both academia and industry: the challenge of discovery. An interview with Perry Molinoff. Mol. Interv. 1, 78–83 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gelijns, A. C. & Thier, S. O. Medical innovation and institutional interdependence: rethinking university-industry connections. JAMA 287, 72–77 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Alper, J. Drug development. Biotech thinking comes to academic medical centers. Science 299, 1303–1305 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Gale, E. A. Between two cultures: the expert clinician and the pharmaceutical industry. Clin Med 3, 538–541 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Reichert, J. M. & Milne, C. P. Public and private sector contributions to the discovery and development of 'impact' drugs. Am. J. Ther. 9, 543–55 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Maxwell, R. A. & Eckhardt, S. B. Drug Discovery: A Casebook and Analysis (Humana, New Jersey, 1990).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Kneller, R. The origins of new drugs. Nature Biotechnol. 23, 529–530 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Nathan, D. G. & Weatherall, D. J. Academic freedom in clinical research. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 1368–1371 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rosenberg, S. A. Secrecy in medical research. N. Engl. J. Med. 334, 392–394 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y. & Gross, C. P. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289, 454–465 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Callaham, M. L., Baxt, W. G., Waeckerle, J. F. & Wears, R. L. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 280, 229–231 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Braod Institute. Broad and Novartis announce collaboration to uncover genetic basis for type 2 diabetes [online], <http://www.broad.mit.edu/media/2004/novartis_1027.html> (2004).

  38. Lawler, A. Diabetes research. Broad–Novartis venture promises a no-strings, public gene database. Science 306, 795 (2004).

  39. Axelrod, R. M. The Evolution of Cooperation (Basic Books, New York, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cho, M. K., Shohara, R., Schissel, A. & Rennie, D. Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at US universities. JAMA 284, 2203–2208 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Mueller, K. in Proceedings of the Seminar of the Magna Charta Observatory: Managing University Autonomy 115–127 (Boronia Univ. Press, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Meyer-Krahmer, F. & Schmoch U. Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy 27, 835–851 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Prager, D. J. & Omenn, G. S. Research, innovation, and university-industry linkages. Science 207, 379–384 (1980).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Merton, R. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Boldrin, M. & Levine, D. K. The economics of ideas and intellectual property. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 1252–1256 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Ridley, R. & Toure, Y. Winning the drugs war. Nature 430, 942–943 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Fidock, D. A., Rosenthal, P. J., Croft, S. L., Brun, R. & Nwaka, S. Antimalarial drug discovery: efficacy models for compound screening. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 509–520 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Sharp, D. Not-for-profit drugs — no longer an oxymoron? Lancet 364, 1472–1474 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kremer, M. & Glennerster, R. Strong Meedicine: Creating Incentives for Pharmaceutical Research on Neglected Diseases (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the invaluable discussions held with G. Gromo (Switzerland), C. Johnston (Australia), R. Flower (UK), P. Vanhoutte (Hong Kong), A. Harvey (Scotland) and B. Duncan (Scotland). We also acknowledge input from E. Jones, A.-M. Jefferies and M. Vincent from the Baker Heart Research Institute for their background research efforts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alfred and Baker Medical Unit, Wynn Domain, Baker Heart Research Institute, Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Australia

    Jaye Chin-Dusting & Garry Jennings

  2. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Grenzacherstrasse 124, Basel, CH-4070, Switzerland

    Jacques Mizrahi

  3. Materia Medica, Mere Croft, Chester Road, Mere Knutsford, WA16 6LG, Cheshire, UK

    Desmond Fitzgerald

Authors
  1. Jaye Chin-Dusting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacques Mizrahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Garry Jennings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Desmond Fitzgerald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaye Chin-Dusting.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

J.D.F. receives consulting fees for advising on drug research strategy and due diligence exercises from several pharmaceutical and venture capital companies, but no equity in the companies for which he consults. J.M. is a full-time employee of Hoffmann-La Roche.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chin-Dusting, J., Mizrahi, J., Jennings, G. et al. Finding improved medicines: the role of academic–industrial collaboration. Nat Rev Drug Discov 4, 891–897 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1879

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1879

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing