IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/2001259.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accelerating Translational Research through Open Science: The Neuro Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • E Richard Gold

Abstract

Translational research is often afflicted by a fundamental problem: a limited understanding of disease mechanisms prevents effective targeting of new treatments. Seeking to accelerate research advances and reimagine its role in the community, the Montreal Neurological Institute (Neuro) announced in the spring of 2016 that it is launching a five-year experiment during which it will adopt Open Science—open data, open materials, and no patenting—across the institution. The experiment seeks to examine two hypotheses. The first is whether the Neuro’s Open Science initiative will attract new private partners. The second hypothesis is that the Neuro’s institution-based approach will draw companies to the Montreal region, where the Neuro is based, leading to the creation of a local knowledge hub. This article explores why these hypotheses are likely to be true and describes the Neuro’s approach to exploring them.

Suggested Citation

  • E Richard Gold, 2016. "Accelerating Translational Research through Open Science: The Neuro Experiment," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-6, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2001259
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2001259
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2001259
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2001259&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001259?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Julian Kolev & Fiona Murray & Scott Stern, 2016. "Of Mice and Academics: Examining the Effect of Openness on Innovation," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-01496928, HAL.
    2. Fiona Murray & Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Julian Kolev & Scott Stern, 2016. "Of Mice and Academics: Examining the Effect of Openness on Innovation," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 212-252, February.
    3. Robert W. Hahn, 2005. "Intellectual Property Rights in Frontier Industries: Software and Biotechnology," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 51596, September.
    4. Eric von Hippel, 1994. ""Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 429-439, April.
    5. David Grandadam & Patrick Cohendet & Laurent Simon, 2013. "Places, Spaces and the Dynamics of Creativity: The Video Game Industry in Montreal," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(10), pages 1701-1714, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gold, E. Richard, 2021. "The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    2. Diego Corrales-Garay & Eva-María Mora-Valentín & Marta Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, 2019. "Open Data for Open Innovation: An Analysis of Literature Characteristics," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-25, March.
    3. Schaeffer, Véronique, 2019. "The use of material transfer agreements in academia: A threat to open science or a cooperation tool?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    4. Selma Leticia Capinzaiki Ottonicar & Paloma Marin Arraiza & Fabiano Armellini, 2020. "Opening Science and Innovation: Opportunities for Emerging Economies," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 14(4), pages 95-111.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeffrey L. Furman & Florenta Teodoridis, 2020. "Automation, Research Technology, and Researchers’ Trajectories: Evidence from Computer Science and Electrical Engineering," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 330-354, March.
    2. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Scheufen, Marc & Waelbroeck, Patrick, 2020. "Does online access promote research in developing countries? Empirical evidence from article-level data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    3. Tania Babina & Alex Xi He & Sabrina T. Howell & Elisabeth Ruth Perlman & Joseph Staudt, 2020. "The Color of Money: Federal vs. Industry Funding of University Research," NBER Working Papers 28160, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Augustine Denteh & D'esir'e K'edagni, 2022. "Misclassification in Difference-in-differences Models," Papers 2207.11890, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    5. Jean-Alain Héraud, 2021. "A New Approach of Innovation: from the Knowledge Economy to the Theory of Creativity Applied to Territorial Development," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(1), pages 201-217, March.
    6. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    7. Yongmin Chen & David E.M. Sappington, 2018. "An optimal rule for patent damages under sequential innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(2), pages 370-397, June.
    8. Feng, Gen-Fu & Zheng, Mingbo & Wen, Jun & Chang, Chun-Ping & Chen, Yin E., 2019. "The assessment of globalization on innovation in Chinese manufacturing firms," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 190-202.
    9. David Karpa & Torben Klarl & Michael Rochlitz, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence, Surveillance, and Big Data," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2108, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    10. David Karpa & Torben Klarl & Michael Rochlitz, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence, Surveillance, and Big Data," Papers 2111.00992, arXiv.org.
    11. Gao, Yanyan & Zheng, Jianghuai, 2020. "The impact of high-speed rail on innovation: An empirical test of the companion innovation hypothesis of transportation improvement with China’s manufacturing firms," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    12. Massimo Florio & Simona Gamba, 2021. "Biomed Europa: After the coronavirus, a public infrastructure to overcome the pharmaceutical oligopoly," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(3), pages 387-409, September.
    13. Yin, Hua-Tang & Wen, Jun & Chang, Chun-Ping, 2022. "Science-technology intermediary and innovation in China: Evidence from State Administration for Market Regulation, 2000–2019," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    14. Kevin J. Boudreau, 2018. "Amateurs Crowds & Professional Entrepreneurs as Platform Complementors," NBER Working Papers 24512, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. John T. Scott, 2016. "Creativity for invention insights: corporate strategies and opportunities for public entrepreneurship," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 43(4), pages 409-448, December.
    16. Kwon, Seokbeom & Marco, Alan C., 2021. "Can antitrust law enforcement spur innovation? Antitrust regulation of patent consolidation and its impact on follow-on innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    17. Florenta Teodoridis, 2018. "Understanding Team Knowledge Production: The Interrelated Roles of Technology and Expertise," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(8), pages 3625-3648, August.
    18. Lu Liu & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi & Dashun Wang, 2023. "Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1046-1058, July.
    19. John Liechty & Stefan Wuyts, 2021. "'If I had a hedge fund, I would cure diabetes': endogenous mechanisms for creating public goods," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(10), pages 1-18, October.
    20. Nancy Gallini, 2017. "Do patents work? Thickets, trolls and antibiotic resistance," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(4), pages 893-926, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2001259. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.