Imagining improved models of technology transfer

There is a growing realization that the traditional model of technology transfer at universities isn't entirely keeping up with the growing complexity and changing landscape of biomedical research and development. Though agreement structures are still evolving and funding sources are changing, a growing appetite for earlier information sharing and partnering have led to new and creative approaches to collaboration.

At Partnering for Cures, five experts in the field of technology transfer and university commercialization discussed new approaches to innovation and collaboration. Moderator Lou DeGennaro of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society began the discussion by asking what recommendations the experts had for dealing with the “growing pains around commercialization” and the consequent tension universities have been experiencing with tech transfer.

Louis Berneman of Osage University Partners was quick to designate himself as a “critical lover” of tech transfer and argued that the metric for measuring success should not be how many university start-ups are in existence, but rather how many went on to “induce further investment.” Berneman added that licensing revenue should not be the main concern.

Other panelists agreed that tech transfer needed to be viewed as a comprehensive process. Chris Coburn of Cleveland Clinic Innovations noted that “[Tech transfer] is all about execution and talent—companies can’t just be good at negotiating deals, they must be attentive to details.” Jodi Black of the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health added that innovators and those in tech transfer offices needed to work together in order to attain the necessary intellectual property expertise. She explained that “these ecosystems should be developed in a way that rewards culture change and values commercializing innovations.”

Regis Kelly of the California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences reminded the audience of the urgency of addressing tech transfer challenges when he stated that he was on a mission, mainly inspired by his wife who has Alzheimer’s. Kelly said that the “rate of getting ideas out of the university and into the marketplace to help people has to be accelerated” and that “tech transfer offices are too focused on faculty” even though the best people to start companies are post-docs, those with “fire in the belly.”

In Robert Urban of Johnson & Johnson’s opinion, tech transfer relies on people, and bringing people together gives technology the opportunity to realize itself. He offered an example from his time at MIT, where he was recruited to help launch an interdisciplinary institute to create a new way to tackle oncology, a field that is “buried alive in data.” Urban asserted that “biologists needed to be put in an area where they could be supported by tech people” so that they are close enough to interact and collaborate. The institute includes biologists, technologists, and mathematicians. In five years, this collection of individuals has created 17 companies, which have raised $300 million in capital.

In closing, the panelists agreed that better project management is a key catalyst to advancing this field. Kelly and Coburn both stated that there was a shortage of information, and Coburn suggested profiling the 75 largest academic medical centers so there would be a central database of information about their medical innovations. Berneman emphasized the importance of not focusing on licensing revenue, but instead on future investment, while Black stated that regulatory and business expertise needed to be “in-house” at research institutions and companies for better decisions to be made. Urban’s advice was to encourage transparency and find personnel that were able to “adapt to the journey [of tech transfer],” even if that means starting the process over from the beginning, if that is what is needed. DeGennaro summarized by saying, “It’s not just about how many new grants there are or how much money has been accumulated, but rather a need for project management [of tech transfer] in a way that hasn’t been thought about yet in an academic setting.”

The Future of Alzheimer’s Research

By Shawn Sullivan, Program Associate at FasterCures 

Earlier this month, Congressmen Ed Markey and Chris Smith, co-chairs of the Congressional Alzheimer’s Task Force, together with the Cure Alzheimer's Fund, held a briefing to explain the latest in Alzheimer's and dementia research and what America must do to achieve the goal of preventing and treating Alzheimer's by 2025.

USAgainstAlzheimer’s Founder George Vradenburg started the briefing with an overview of Alzheimer’s current effects on the American population and the immense dangers that lay ahead if new treatments and therapies are not discovered in the next decade:

• Alzheimer’s currently afflicts more than 5 million Americans, and Alzheimer’s care cost $183 billion in 2010 in the United States. These numbers will triple by 2050 with current trends.
• For every $400 spent on Alzheimer’s care, only $1 is spent on research.
• The president’s budget for 2013 includes $80 million for Alzheimer’s research. This is about $0.26 per American citizen.
• Alzheimer’s is the only disease in the top 10 with no disease-modifying treatment or cure. 

Vradenburg also noted that the large number of baby-boomers entering their highest risk age over the next 10 years could make estimates about future impacts seem conservative. In particular, the effects of Alzheimer’s on Medicare costs could overwhelm an already stressed system. “If funding for research stays at current levels," he said "the chances of us finding an effective treatment before this takes place are slim to none.”

Rudy Tanzi, director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit of the MassGeneral Institute for Neurodegenerative Disease (MIND) and Chair of the Research Consortium of the Cure Alzheimer's Fund, gave an overview of current research efforts. He started by mentioning two recent failed drug trials and how those failures have most members of the Alzheimer’s research community questioning current strategies. Tanzi is of the opinion that we are going after the right targets but with the wrong drugs and, more importantly, in the wrong patients. Researchers are coming to the conclusion that by the time a patient is showing symptoms of the disease, it may be too late to intervene. This will make forming future clinical trials all that more difficult. Tanzi also noted that researchers have cured Alzheimer’s in countless mice but that none of the results have been predictive of human response.

Tanzi pointed out that stagnant NIH funding is causing America to lose a generation of researchers who cannot gain access to the resources needed for innovative research. “My students are telling themselves that if I have to fight tooth and nail for research funding, what chance do they have?”

Philip Haydon, founder of GliaCure, Inc., then spoke about the exciting research underway at his company which he believes could lead us to new treatments. He noted that despite the promise of these discoveries, there is little interest from investors. “I am still dependent on the NIH if there is to be any translational research done with these discoveries,” he said. "However, NIH funding is becoming more difficult to obtain."

One attendee asked the panelists what effect sequestration – automatic, across-the-board federal spending cuts – would  have on Alzheimer’s research. They agreed that while the current level of Alzheimer’s research funding is inadequate, the cuts in research that would be imposed by the impending “fiscal cliff” would be devastating and could set back efforts to find new treatments for Alzheimer’s by a matter of decades, if not indefinitely.

*****

Interested in learning more?  Come hear George Vradenburg speak about Alzheimer’s research at Partnering for Cures, Nov. 28-30, in New York. He will join a distinguished panel discussing “Rules, tools, and data pools for catalyzing drug development.”

Celebrating Science: Uncovering the Mysteries of the Brain

This is the second in a series of blogs highlighting key themes and outcomes from FasterCures’ Celebration of Science, which brought together over 1,000 scientists, educators, industry executives, policymakers, and patient advocates to celebrate the scientific achievements of the last 20 years and jumpstart a new wave of discovery.

The brain dictates when to breathe, when to blink, the way our voice sounds, how we remember our loved ones, and all of the other everyday functions we easily complete without consideration. But what happens when your brain begins to let you down? When disease takes over and starts to break down your body’s ability to communicate with itself?

One of the themes at FasterCures’ Celebration of Science (COS) was the need for progress in how we understand, treat and cure brain disorders. Among the participants at this unique event – which aimed to raise the profile of science and research on the national agenda – were neurodegenerative disease researchers, patients and caregivers dealing with a range of disorders from Alzheimer’s to Schizophrenia to depression, and drug developers working on bringing new therapies to market.

“It’s easy to miss the true impact that these illnesses have on individuals, families, and society at large,” Kafui Dzirasa of Duke University School of Medicine admitted during his session at the National Institutes of Health (NIH.) “If we know that all of those experiences are locked within this organ called the brain, and that disease happens when there are changes with this organ, the question comes, how come we haven’t figured out how to cure these disorders yet?”

Dzirasa explained that the challenge early neurologists faced with the dissection of the brain was that it gave them an understanding of the anatomy of the organ, but “like taking apart a laptop, one cannot truly understand its function unless studied while it is on and processing.” This is where the beauty of brain imaging comes in.

The Power of Imaging

Director of the NIH and Celebration of Science co-host Dr. Francis Collins sat down with Daniel Reich in the NIH MRI center to view images of a brain and the vast detailing available with today’s three-dimensional scans.

“How would this look different on somebody with Alzheimer’s disease?” he asked. The audience watched on the screen as ~30% of the brain image deflated, almost like a sponge losing water. Understanding the functionality and physicality of a healthy versus unhealthy brain through imaging has taught us that there’s an opportunity to detect Alzheimer’s disease early and try to do something about it.

The Human Toll

Judy Bachrach of Vanity Fair shared her mother’s struggle with Alzheimer’s disease and the complications it has created for her family. She painted a picture – through words and photographs – of a vibrant, loving woman full of energy and life. She then shared another picture of the same impeccably dressed lady smiling at the camera. “This” she said, “is not my mother. There is a vacancy there that was never there before.”

Judy went on to talk about how she has had to become her mother’s mother.  From dealing with embezzlement schemes to constantly battling with banks and insurance companies for control of her mother’s accounts, the emotional toll and demands on her time have compounded.

Each year, Judy’s mother must take an Alzheimer’s test for insurance purposes.  As part of this test, she is asked to write a sentence – just one sentence – on any topic she likes.  Judy shared that the last time her mother was able to perform this task, over a year ago, the sentence read: “I am so sorry that my daughter has to take care of me.”

Towards a Cure

One of the final sessions at Celebration of Science was “Alzheimer’s and Other Issues of Aging” led by Pfizer’s Freda Lewis-Hall.  It focused on the steps needed to find meaningful treatments and cures for diseases that plague millions of seniors.

According to the panelists, major pieces of the puzzle that is a cure include:
  - Prevention
  - Funding
  - Learning from failures
  - Patient and clinical trial networking

Dzirasa encapsulated the promise of brain science when he said “I hope you’re one of those sitting in the audience celebrating the progress that we’ve made in the brain, and blown away with this idea that one day these advances may open the doorway to new approaches and new technologies that allow us to see brain illness and treat symptoms before these disorders ever really arise and manifest.”