- Email: [email protected]
The best way to bridge the industry-academe divide?
FEATURE
The best way to bridge the industry–academe divide?
1334
identify whether a piece of intellectual property is amenable to further development.” It is this third aspect that sets WIBR apart from most UK institutes and university departments. In the past, the development of intellectual
Rights were not granted to include this image in electronic media. Please refer to the printed journal.
Crossing the gap
property was often a hit-and-miss affair in the UK. But recently, successive governments have called upon academics to take more interest in the practical endpoints of their research. “Now, for the first time, academics in general are interested in protecting and developing their intellectual property”, says Moncada. “The structure we have set up here helps them do that without having to become businessmen.” Four companies have been launched in association with WIBR and Moncada believes that within 5–10 years the revenue from these and other ventures will support WIBR’s infrastructure. However, this close association could bring problems of financial accountability and WIBR will have to be careful that no public money goes into these fledgling companies. Moncada, meanwhile, sums up the institute as an effort to bring together the best bits—intellectual freedom and financial know-how—of academe and industry, respectively. To date, about 30% of the groups recruited to WIBR come from industry, the rest from universities, and “so far there has been a good interaction between people from different backgrounds. I have never believed that the contradictions between academic and industrial biology are as big as people believed. Basically, all the scientists interested in a specific problem ask the same questions; they just express them in different ways, depending on the setting in which they operate.” And what is the question that the WIBR scientists are addressing? One might think, after visiting the institute’s website (www.ucl.ac.uk/WIBR/), that
Newbery Smith Photography
he first time I visited the Cruciform building—a large Victorian edifice in central London—was in the 1970s. Then, the building housed University College Hospital, a dreary and run-down National Health Service hospital. But the building has been transformed and now houses the Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research (WIBR). The internal walls have been stripped of their thick paint, revealing intricate patterns of gleaming tiles; the wooden floors have gone, leaving behind delicate mosaics; and the unique shape that gives the building its name is now obvious. The hospital beds have gone too, and the building’s spacious wings house pristine laboratories full of state-of-the-art equipment. Research Director Salvador Moncada explains some of the thinking behind the establishment of WIBR. “Back in the 1990s, when I was working in a pharmaceutical company, it was obvious that the pressures on the drug industry would lead it into a situation in which fundamental research would be more difficult to do.” Moncada believed that it was necessary to create a place in which scientists could do basic research but at the same time be interested in practical endpoints. “I wanted to provide an environment like the one I enjoyed at Wellcome in Beckenham but within a university setting.” But, in the early days, the project attracted a great deal of controversy. Many people expressed concerns about how such a hybrid structure would work in practice and some of those originally involved with the institute withdrew from the project. Moncada, himself, admits that the project has been through some difficult times since its inception in 1995, but, he says, “we have turned the corner now and already this place is a much more interesting place than I imagined it would be at this early stage”. WIBR, he explains, has three unique aspects. “First, we designed the building to provide an open and interactive environment. There are no small laboratories that people can hide in, only large open spaces. Second, we have a very strong interface between biology and medicinal chemistry. And third, we have a priori created an infrastructure to monitor the research here and to
T
Moncada has recruited people primarily to study nitric-oxide biology, a long-term interest of his. But this he denies. “I never wanted a large group working on nitric oxide but it is allpervading in biology. What I wanted was to attract high-quality research groups and to create an environment which would give the scientists what they like most—freedom and flexibility. The general area of research we set out to cover was chronic degenerative diseases.” John Garthwaite, for example, heads a group that works on neurodegeneration. “I am interested in how brain cells talk to each other and how this goes wrong in neurological disorders”, he explains. Although some of Garthwaite’s work may have clinical applications—for example, his observation that some types of sodium channels are inappropriately activated during neurodegeneration might lead to a new therapeutic targets—he describes himself as a basic scientist. “People like me should stick with what they are good at—creating new ideas, following up on the result that does not fit. We have a very good environment here intellectually”, he continues, “and a real opportunity for starting something new. We need time to settle down, but within 2-3 years we should start seeing the fruits of what we have set up”. Moncada would probably agree with that estimate but so far only 150 people have moved into a building designed to house 250. Moncada and his colleagues stress that the slow, thoughtful growth of WIBR is deliberate, that they are aiming for an environment where bright ideas can be efficiently turned into medical applications. But for me, as a visitor from a thriving Cambridge institute, the building felt empty. I wondered why more people had not migrated in from the crowded laboratories just across the road in University College and whether the scientific population had reached the critical mass necessary for productive research. And although it was clear that Moncada had imported a strong contingent of people with an industrial background, the medical input to this biomedical institute was not so obvious. Only time will tell whether the final mix of academics, medics, and industrial scientists proves to be both innovative and productive. Jane Bradbury
THE LANCET • Vol 356 • October 14, 2000
For personal use only. Not to be reproduced without permission of The Lancet.
The best way to bridge the industry–academe divide?
1334
identify whether a piece of intellectual property is amenable to further development.” It is this third aspect that sets WIBR apart from most UK institutes and university departments. In the past, the development of intellectual
Rights were not granted to include this image in electronic media. Please refer to the printed journal.
Crossing the gap
property was often a hit-and-miss affair in the UK. But recently, successive governments have called upon academics to take more interest in the practical endpoints of their research. “Now, for the first time, academics in general are interested in protecting and developing their intellectual property”, says Moncada. “The structure we have set up here helps them do that without having to become businessmen.” Four companies have been launched in association with WIBR and Moncada believes that within 5–10 years the revenue from these and other ventures will support WIBR’s infrastructure. However, this close association could bring problems of financial accountability and WIBR will have to be careful that no public money goes into these fledgling companies. Moncada, meanwhile, sums up the institute as an effort to bring together the best bits—intellectual freedom and financial know-how—of academe and industry, respectively. To date, about 30% of the groups recruited to WIBR come from industry, the rest from universities, and “so far there has been a good interaction between people from different backgrounds. I have never believed that the contradictions between academic and industrial biology are as big as people believed. Basically, all the scientists interested in a specific problem ask the same questions; they just express them in different ways, depending on the setting in which they operate.” And what is the question that the WIBR scientists are addressing? One might think, after visiting the institute’s website (www.ucl.ac.uk/WIBR/), that
Newbery Smith Photography
he first time I visited the Cruciform building—a large Victorian edifice in central London—was in the 1970s. Then, the building housed University College Hospital, a dreary and run-down National Health Service hospital. But the building has been transformed and now houses the Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research (WIBR). The internal walls have been stripped of their thick paint, revealing intricate patterns of gleaming tiles; the wooden floors have gone, leaving behind delicate mosaics; and the unique shape that gives the building its name is now obvious. The hospital beds have gone too, and the building’s spacious wings house pristine laboratories full of state-of-the-art equipment. Research Director Salvador Moncada explains some of the thinking behind the establishment of WIBR. “Back in the 1990s, when I was working in a pharmaceutical company, it was obvious that the pressures on the drug industry would lead it into a situation in which fundamental research would be more difficult to do.” Moncada believed that it was necessary to create a place in which scientists could do basic research but at the same time be interested in practical endpoints. “I wanted to provide an environment like the one I enjoyed at Wellcome in Beckenham but within a university setting.” But, in the early days, the project attracted a great deal of controversy. Many people expressed concerns about how such a hybrid structure would work in practice and some of those originally involved with the institute withdrew from the project. Moncada, himself, admits that the project has been through some difficult times since its inception in 1995, but, he says, “we have turned the corner now and already this place is a much more interesting place than I imagined it would be at this early stage”. WIBR, he explains, has three unique aspects. “First, we designed the building to provide an open and interactive environment. There are no small laboratories that people can hide in, only large open spaces. Second, we have a very strong interface between biology and medicinal chemistry. And third, we have a priori created an infrastructure to monitor the research here and to
T
Moncada has recruited people primarily to study nitric-oxide biology, a long-term interest of his. But this he denies. “I never wanted a large group working on nitric oxide but it is allpervading in biology. What I wanted was to attract high-quality research groups and to create an environment which would give the scientists what they like most—freedom and flexibility. The general area of research we set out to cover was chronic degenerative diseases.” John Garthwaite, for example, heads a group that works on neurodegeneration. “I am interested in how brain cells talk to each other and how this goes wrong in neurological disorders”, he explains. Although some of Garthwaite’s work may have clinical applications—for example, his observation that some types of sodium channels are inappropriately activated during neurodegeneration might lead to a new therapeutic targets—he describes himself as a basic scientist. “People like me should stick with what they are good at—creating new ideas, following up on the result that does not fit. We have a very good environment here intellectually”, he continues, “and a real opportunity for starting something new. We need time to settle down, but within 2-3 years we should start seeing the fruits of what we have set up”. Moncada would probably agree with that estimate but so far only 150 people have moved into a building designed to house 250. Moncada and his colleagues stress that the slow, thoughtful growth of WIBR is deliberate, that they are aiming for an environment where bright ideas can be efficiently turned into medical applications. But for me, as a visitor from a thriving Cambridge institute, the building felt empty. I wondered why more people had not migrated in from the crowded laboratories just across the road in University College and whether the scientific population had reached the critical mass necessary for productive research. And although it was clear that Moncada had imported a strong contingent of people with an industrial background, the medical input to this biomedical institute was not so obvious. Only time will tell whether the final mix of academics, medics, and industrial scientists proves to be both innovative and productive. Jane Bradbury
THE LANCET • Vol 356 • October 14, 2000
For personal use only. Not to be reproduced without permission of The Lancet.