Public health and valorization of genome-based technologies: a new model

Journal of Translational Medicine

Angela Brand²  Servaas A Morré²  Tobias Schulte in den Bäumen¹  Jonathan A Lal¹ 

[1]Institute for Public Health Genomics, Department of Genetics & Cell Biology, CAPHRI, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 5, 6229 ES Maastricht, The Netherlands

[2]Institute for Public Health Genomics, Department of Genetics & Cell Biology, Research Institutes CAPHRI and GROW, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 5, 6229 ES Maastricht, The Netherlands

关键词: Genomics;    Health Policy;    Healthcare;    Translational Research;    Valorization;    Health Impact Assessment;    Health Needs Assessment;    Public Health Genomics;    Health Technology Assessment;    Technology Transfer;   

Others  :  1207811
DOI  :  10.1186/1479-5876-9-207

 received in 2011-08-16, accepted in 2011-12-05,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

The success rate of timely translation of genome-based technologies to commercially feasible products/services with applicability in health care systems is significantly low. We identified both industry and scientists neglect health policy aspects when commercializing their technology, more specifically, Public Health Assessment Tools (PHAT) and early on involvement of decision makers through which market authorization and reimbursements are dependent. While Technology Transfer (TT) aims to facilitate translation of ideas into products, Health Technology Assessment, one component of PHAT, for example, facilitates translation of products/processes into healthcare services and eventually comes up with recommendations for decision makers. We aim to propose a new model of valorization to optimize integration of genome-based technologies into the healthcare system.

Methods

The method used to develop our model is an adapted version of the Fish Trap Model and the Basic Design Cycle.

Results

We found although different, similarities exist between TT and PHAT. Realizing the potential of being mutually beneficial justified our proposal of their relative parallel initiation. We observed that the Public Health Genomics Wheel should be included in this relative parallel activity to ensure all societal/policy aspects are dealt with preemptively by both stakeholders. On further analysis, we found out this whole process is dependent on the Value of Information. As a result, we present our LAL (Learning Adapting Leveling) model which proposes, based on market demand; TT and PHAT by consultation/bi-lateral communication should advocate for relevant technologies. This can be achieved by public-private partnerships (PPPs). These widely defined PPPs create the innovation network which is a developing, consultative/collaborative-networking platform between TT and PHAT. This network has iterations and requires learning, assimilating and using knowledge developed and is called absorption capacity. We hypothesize that the higher absorption capacity, higher success possibility. Our model however does not address the phasing out of technology although we believe the same model can be used to simultaneously phase out a technology.

Conclusions

This model proposes to facilitate optimization/decrease the timeframe of integration in healthcare. It also helps industry and researchers to come to a strategic decision at an early stage, about technology being developed thus, saving on resources, hence minimizing failures.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Lal et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Business Insights: Trends in Biotechnology Technology Transfer to 2014-Deal volume has doubled since 2008 [http:/ / www.reports-research.com/ 168/ d/ 2011/ 02/ 14/ business-insights-trends-in-biotech nology-technology-transfer-to-2014- deal-volume-has-doubled-sin/ ] webcite
• [2]Byrd CA: Profile of Spin-off Firms in the Biotechnology Sector: Results from the Biotechnology use and Development Survey-1999. In Business Special Surveys and Technology Statistics Division Working Papers. Statistics Canada; 2002.
• [3]Strength and Opportunity The landscape of the medical technology, medical biotechnology and industrial biotechnology sectors in the UK HM Government; 2009:11-12. 28, 34, 38, 40
• [4]Maggon K: Global Biotechnology Market Intelligence Monograph. 32nd edition. Knol Publishing Guild; 2011.
• [5]US Biotech Market Analysis RNCOS Industry Research Solutions; 2010.
• [6]Bercowitz SF: Biotech made easy. [http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/biotech-made-easy] webcite
• [7]Ukropcova D, Sturdik E: Biotechnology commercialization in the world. Acta Chimica Slovava 2011, 4:115-125.
• [8]Niosi J, Banik M: The evolution and performance of biotechnology regional systems of innovations. Cambridge Journal of Economics 2005, 29:343-357.
• [9]Fontanarosa PB, DeAngelis CD: Basic science and translational research in JAMA. JAMA 2002, 287:1728.
• [10]Berwick DM: Disseminating Innovations in Health Care. JAMA 2003, 289:1969-1970.
• [11]Peng W: Trends in the biotech literature 2009. Nature Biotechnology 2010, 28:887.
• [12]Snyder M, Cook-Deegan B: DNA Patent Database Statistics: 2010. DNA Patent Database; 2011.
• [13]Catalogue of Biotechnology Patents in the Mercosur BIOTECHSUR; 2008.
• [14]Murtagh J, Foerster V: Managing Technology Diffusion-Discussion Paper. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009:4. 7-8, 10
• [15]Khoury MJ, Gwinn M, Yoon PW, Dowling N, Moore CA, Bradley L: The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention. Genetics in Medicine 2007, 9:665.
• [16]Copple RF, Wellons HB: Evolution of a Bio-Product. Corporate Counsel 2008, 65-66.
• [17]Mullins B, Crowe J: Technology Transfer: A Roadmap. College and University Auditor 1999.
• [18]Outreach & Tech Transfer [http://www.ncat.edu/~divofres/ott/howto.php] webcite
• [19]Rasmussen E: The Process of New Venture Creation in a University Setting. In Accompanying measures & survival of new firms: between Darwinism and assistance. Montpellier; 2005.
• [20]Rosenköetter N, Vondeling H, Blancquaert I, Mekel OCL, Kristensen FB, Brand A: The Contribution of Health Technology Assessment, Health Needs Assessment, and Health Impact Assessment to the Assessment and Translation of Technologies in the Field of Public Health Genomics. Public Health Genomics 2011, 14:46-47.
• [21]HTA Definition [http://www.eunethta.eu/Public/About_EUnetHTA/HTA/] webcite
• [22]Health Impact Assessment: Main concepts and suggested approach Gottenburg consensus paper Brussels: European Center for Health Policy; 1999:4.
• [23]Crow MM, Tucker C: The American research university system as America's de facto technology policy. Science and Public Policy 2001, 28:2-9.
• [24]McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA: The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine 2003, 348:2643-2644.
• [25]Woolf SH: The Meaning of Translational Research and Why It Matters. JAMA 2008, 299:211-213.
• [26]Williams A: Priority setting in public and private health care. A guide through the ideological jungle. Journal of Health Economics 1988, 7:173-183.
• [27]Ostrower F: Foundation Effectiveness Definitions and Challenges. The Urban Institute; 2004:6.
• [28]Managing Clinical Effectiveness Definition [http://www.clinicalgovernance.scot.nhs.uk/section2/definition.asp] webcite
• [29]Burke W, Khoury MJ, Stewart A, Zimmern RL: The path from genome-based research to population health: Development of an international public health genomics network. Genetics in Medicine 2006, 8:453.
• [30]Valorize [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valorize] webcite
• [31]Wiedhaup K, Herben C, Meijer I: Diversity. In Partners in the polder A vision for the life sciences in the Netherlands and the role of public-private partnerships. Edited by Laane C, Besteman K. Roland Berger Strategy Consultants; 2009:221.
• [32]Innovation Roadmap on Bio-based Feedstocks, Fuels and Industrial Products Bioproducts Canada; 2003.
• [33]Traore N: Bioproducts development by Canadian biotechnology firms: findings from the 2001 Biotechnology use and development Survey. Statistics Canada; 2003.
• [34]Progress report#1-Bioresources Final Research to Support Development of an Organization to Advance and Promote British Columbia's Bioproducts Industry 2005.
• [35]Roozenburg N, Eekels J: The Basic Design Cycle. Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods 1995, 84-93.
• [36]van Boeijen A, Daalhuizen J (Eds): The Fish Trap Model In Delft Design Guide. Delft: Faculty of Industrial Design; 2001.
• [37]Health Technology Assessment Process [http://www.cgh.uottawa.ca/WHOCC/projects/eo_toolkit/hta.htm] webcite
• [38]The HTA process of DAHTA@DIMDI [http:/ / web.archive.org/ web/ 20090626065707/ http:/ / www.dimdi.de/ static/ en/ hta/ methoden/ prozess/ index.htm] webcite
• [39]Douw K, Vondeling H, Eskildsen D, Simpson S: Use of the Internet in Scanning the Horizon for New and Emerging Health Technologies: A Survey of Agencies Involved in Horizon Scanning. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2003, 5.
• [40]Brown IT, Smale A, Verma A, Momandwall S: Medical technology horizon scanning. Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine 2005, 28:200-201.
• [41]Sarewitz D, Pielke RA Jr: The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy 2007, 5-14.
• [42]Beskow LM, Khoury MJ, Baker TG, Thrasher JF: The integration of Genomics into public health research, policy and practice in the United States. Community Genetics 2001, 4:4.
• [43]Oestreich T: The value of information Part 1-The Framework. Journal of Management Excellence: The Value of Information 2010, 8-9.
• [44]Martin MJC: Innovations as Technological Mutations. In Managing innovation and entrepreneurship in technology-based firms. John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 1994:43.
• [45]Laane C, Besteman K, Dongen Bv, Vugts J: Unity. In Partners in the polder A vision for the life sciences in the Netherlands and the role of public-private partnerships. Edited by Laane C, Besteman K. Roland Berger Strategy Consultants; 2009. 18, 39, 40
• [46]Tijssen RJW: Quantitative assessment of large heterogeneous R&D Networks: The case of process engineering in the Netherlands. Research policy 1998, 26:792.
• [47]Fischer MM, Fröhlich J, Gassler H, Varga A: Innovation, Knowledge Creation and Systems of Innovations. ERSA conference papers 2000, 5-7.
• [48]Cohen WM, Levinthal DA: Innovation and Learning: The two faces of R & D. The Economic Journal 1989, 99:569-570.
• [49]Booth-Clibborn N, Packer C, Stevens A: Health technology diffusion rates. Statins, coronary stents, and MRI in England. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2000, 16:781-786.
• [50]EUnetHTA WP4-Core HTA on Drug Eluting Stents Pilot assessment European Network for Health Technology Assessment; 2008.
• [51]Becla L, Lunshof JE, Gurwitz D, Schulte in den Bäumen T, Westerhoff HV, Lange BM, Brand A: Health technology assessment in the era of personalized health care. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2011, 27:118-126.
• [52]Clinical Utility of Personalised Medicine National Health and Medical Research Council; 2011:3.