Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - (Page 17) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe August 2008 Technology: IT 17 The H1 visa programme is the best example of both bureaucratic and political blundering. IMI and the EU could take steps to attract and retain the best and brightest scientists and technologists regardless of their national origin. As Table 1 shows, all but one of the 18 projects can and will benefit from the application of information technologies. Unfortunately, not a single programme exists that seeks to IMI SRA — KEY POINTS* “The aim of the IMI Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) is not to produce specific treatments but to address the key ‘bottlenecks’ in the biomedical R&D process, namely (a) predicting medicine safety, (b) predicting medicine efficacy, (c) knowledge management and (d) education and training.” “The European Commission has made E1 billion (over 5 years) available for IMI from the 7th Framework Programme (7FP) for Research (2007–2013). This investment will be matched by the pharmaceutical industry Research projects will be selected for funding according to strict criteria. Public funds will go exclusively to the public sector and small companies.” It is important to note that FP7 funds will be used exclusively to boost the R&D capabilities of the public sector and small and medium-sized companies. The collaborative approach fostered by IMI will reduce risks for small companies and help them develop new products faster, through access to shared resources, tools and infrastructure. The project also offers opportunities for companies specialised in the development of tools and technologies supporting medicine development, such as in vitro, in vivo and in silico modelling. IMI “will publish calls for research proposals that address the topics in the Research Agenda. Groups of partners (for example, universities, small/medium sized companies, larger biopharmaceutical companies, public authorities and patients) will then form public–private collaborations (PPCs) to propose research projects and apply to IMI for funding. At a minimum, a public–private collaboration will consist of two academic institutions or SMEs plus two biopharmaceutical companies which are members of EFPIA.” Note: Bolding and italicisation added by the author to emphasise key points. * Extracts from IMI_20ProfilePagerEnglish.pdf and IMI_FAQ.pdf at www.imieurope.org ** Participating Companies: AZ, Bayer, Boehringer Ing., Chiesi, Eli Lilly, Esteve, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson &Johnson, Lundbeck, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis Vaccines, Novo Nordisk, Organon, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Solvay, UCB and Wyeth. leverage these technologies across the projects. This, in spite of many having similar challenges for data management, analysis, exploration and reporting. And, nearly all of them will need to rely on collaboration tools. While this is an understandable oversight, given the process that was followed for defining the first call projects, it is not one that should go uncorrected. As noted earlier, the projects identified for the first call do not address the value to be gained by leveraging information technology across them or to any new projects that will be contemplated for future funding. Here, IMI can learn from the US cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid (caBIG™) project that seeks to transform the way information is collected and leveraged on behalf of cancer research. By taking a holistic view of cancer research, including the inclusion of all players, the project can determine how just a few technologies can be leveraged to serve diverse needs. It is a good example of spending fewer dollars and getting caBIG returns. While it is too early to evaluate the success of this programme, it nevertheless suggests a viable way forward for IMI. Recommendations In closing, it is suggested that IMI consider the inclusion of the following actions as part of the planning process for the second call: 1. Determine whether the goals and programmes of IMI are truly addressing the real reasons why medical innovation is lagging within the EU. 2. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the competition, with emphasis on the US, and design projects that create a true competitive advantage for the EU. 3. Add a major innovation programme to the mix that allows organisations and companies to suggest and undertake projects not pre-conceived by the current IMI membership. 4. Create an IT-focused programme that determines how shared capabilities can be applied across projects. Final words It is clear that the IMI initiative recognises and seeks to address many of the shortcomings of life sciences R&D within the EU. With the organisation currently searching for a permanent executive director and working toward the start of these 18 projects, the level of effort expended so far must be commended. As with any new and ambitious programme, it is expected that changes and refinements will need to be made. It is in this light that the four recommendations above are made. About the Author George Laszlo is the managing director of Laszlo Consulting (US), a firm providing strategic IT consulting to the industry. He is also the editor of The Laszlo Letter, an online webzine devoted to operational excellence in life sciences via IT enablement. http://www.imi-europe.org http://www.imi-europe.org http://laszloletter.typepad.com/
Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 Contents From the Editor News and Analysis Calendar The Calm Before the Storm Steering Pharma in Russia Built on Sand Renaissance Man IT Meets IMI Send for the Software Specialists Know Your eMarket Last Words Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 (Page Cover1) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 (Page Cover2) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Contents (Page 3) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Contents (Page 4) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - From the Editor (Page 5) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - News and Analysis (Page 6) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - News and Analysis (Page 7) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Calendar (Page 8) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Calendar (Page 9) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - The Calm Before the Storm (Page 10) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Steering Pharma in Russia (Page 11) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Built on Sand (Page 12) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Renaissance Man (Page 13) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Renaissance Man (Page 14) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - IT Meets IMI (Page 15) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - IT Meets IMI (Page 16) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - IT Meets IMI (Page 17) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Send for the Software Specialists (Page 18) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Send for the Software Specialists (Page 19) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Know Your eMarket (Page 20) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Know Your eMarket (Page 21) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - August 2008 - Last Words (Page 22)
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.