Medical Innovation and Institutional Interdependence

Abstract

University-industry research collaborations have been key to a continued high degree of technological innovation in medicine. Recently, however, critical questions have been posed about the potential negative aspects of highly productive means of encouraging innovation. Concerns center on blurring roles between academic research and the commercial world and the implications of universities' newfound readiness to benefit financially from their intellectual property. The roles of both parties are often inadequately captured by considering members of university faculties as single-mindedly devoted to the advancement of fundamental knowledge and industrial firms as mere developers of university research. Rather, medical innovation depends on extensive interactions between universities and industry, with knowledge and technology transfer flowing in both directions. These interactions have had important public health and economic benefits. Yet, there is a risk to the university-industry relationship if the cultural and ethical principles of one partner overwhelm those of the other. Therefore, universities and industry need to maximize the upsides of collaboration and minimize the downsides by means of internal organizational change as well as formation of new models of collaboration, such as intellectual partnerships or virtual research organizations. This article reviews the numerous institutional patterns of innovation and draws implications for organizational and public policies.

Addressing challenges of training a new generation of clinician‐innovators through an interdisciplinary medical technology design program: Bench‐to‐Bedside

“…Second Lesson: opening the doorway for students to interact with industry professionals in a safe manner that does not compromise or conflict with their education provides hands‐on innovation training that cannot be taught in the classroom, creates an invaluable network of university‐industry connections, and increases the likelihood of medical solutions succeeding – as evidenced by B2B's increase in both limited liability companies and patents during the fourth year of the competition. The benefits of such university‐industry connections are not new [17], however their extension to the current training of future clinicians shows extreme promise towards student retention, project advancement, and the creation of long‐term economic benefit.…”

Comparing the clinical trial characteristics of industry–funded trials and non– industry–funded trials

“…Third, placebos are expensive, and industry-funded trials are typically better resourced than non-industry-funded trials. 7,15 Fourth, there is often little incentive for a pharmaceutical company to use an available medication as their comparator, as opposed to a placebo; importantly, this can be problematic in cases where the use of an active comparator instead of placebo would have generated more clinically important data.…”

Association of Industry Sponsorship With Cancer Clinical Trial Accrual

“…This association of industry support and accrual success is likely multifactorial and may be related to an integrated and efficient infrastructure for clinical trial management; it may also reflect increased funding to assist with research support staff or to offer financial incentives for patient participation . Alternatively, financial interests may be at play, as there is potential for bias that leads to disproportionately positive results by using surrogate end points that require lower patient accrual . As industry-funded trials continue to rise, the broader academic community would benefit from understanding and distilling industry methodologies that can improve patient accrual, while avoiding methodological biases …”