Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39120768›Full record

ReviewHandbook of experimental pharmacology2024

Project-Based Public-Private Collaborations.

Peter Hein, Martin C Michel

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Handbook of experimental pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Peter HeinAlmirall SA, R&D Center, Sant Feliu de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5899-3979
Martin C MichelDepartment of Pharmacology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. marmiche@uni-mainz.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4161-8467

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Project-based collaborations between a single academic group and a single pharmaceutical company arguably are the most frequent form of public-private partnership in preclinical research and development of new drugs. This chapter discusses the benefits of such collaborations for both sides and potential challenges that can arise before and during the conduct of a project. This is largely based on a survey of expectations and experience by 134 academic investigators with a history of engagement in a project-based collaboration with a pharmaceutical company as well as unstructured experience directly, and learned through discussions with colleagues, from the authors. Obviously, a key benefit for both sides is achieving goals that neither could easily achieve by itself. Scientific discovery, and publications, may be a shared benefit, while for academics, funding and access to compounds, and for industry, access to assay technology and reputational factors may be important. Major hurdles can be freedom to publish and assignment of intellectual property rights. On pragmatic grounds, reaching a contract can be cumbersome, which is largely attributable to the legal expectations and needs of both parties. However, overall satisfaction with project-based collaborations appears very high for academic investigators.

Indexed as

Drug IndustryPublic-Private Sector PartnershipsCooperative BehaviorHumansIntellectual PropertyContractFundingPreclinical research and developmentPublic–private partnership

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.