T H E N I H C A T A L Y S T | J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y 2006 |
|
Many Sizes To Fit AllTHE WAYS AND MEANS OF NIH TECH TRANSFER |
by Fran Pollner |
![]() |
Tech
Transfer Material Witnesses: (left) Rochelle Blaustein, NIDDK, and Lili
Portilla, NHLBI
|
|
Cindy
Fuchs, NIAID
|
It
may sound like a variation on the sardonic "We're from the government,
and we're here to help you," but when Rochelle
Blaustein says, "Tell us what you need, and we'll figure out how to
get it for you," she's telling it like it is to NIH scientists.
And to back that promise up, there's
a track record of thousands of agreements forged by Blaustein and other NIH
IC tech-transfer officers whereby NIH scientists and labs have secured needed
resourcesmaterial, financial, intellectualnot within their immediate
reach at NIH.
Blaustein heads the Office of Technology
Transfer and Development at NIDDK and co-chairs the Technology Development Coordinators
Committee (TDCC), an umbrella group for all IC tech-transfer officers that meets
monthly to compare notes and problem solve.
In an interview with The NIH Catalyst,
Blaustein and two of her colleaguesNIAID's Cindy
Fuchs, TDCC chair, and NHLBI's Lili
Portilla, immediate past TDCC chairdiscussed the various mechanisms
at their disposal to further the research objectives of NIH scientists while
also meeting NIH s obligations to facilitate the transfer of new technology
to the public arena.
"We're responsible," Fuchs
said, "for helping the ICs achieve their programmatic missions." The
impetus for collaboration may originate in a company that is, for instance,
exploring the commercial potential of a proprietary compound on which an NIH
scientist has published related research. Or it could arise from within an institute
that could use the services of an enterprise with certain high-throughput technology,
screening assays, or preclinical models.
In each case, the IC tech-transfer
office is the brainstorming center to craft the type of agreement that best
serves both science and the public interest. It also assists the institute in
the process of finding the right partner.
Since 1986, when the CRADA mechanism
(see below) was established by Congress, NIH
has executed 1,400 such joint research agreements with outside partners. In
a brochure, NIAID cites the development and/or testing of hepatitis and pneumococcal
vaccines and of humanized monoclonal antibody to prevent respiratory syncytial
virus as examples of the many public health advances gained through CRADAs the
institute has undertaken with industry.
In 2004, 87 CRADAs were approved NIH-wide;
they ran the gamut from very early stage basic research through phase II clinical
trials, Blaustein said.
But, she added, CRADAs account for
"fewer than half of our major agreements. They are just one tool in our
arsenal."
M-CRADAs, MTAs, and CTAs are others.
NIAID has acquired proprietary cytokines and other biological materials through
the M-CRADA mechanism for the purpose of exploring biological properties, Fuchs
noted.
M-CRADAs typically arise from the interest
of an NIH scientist in a proprietary material. If the involved company foresees
a potential patent or product strategy, it will opt for the licensing option
of an M-CRADA. Otherwise, the MTA may suffice, with such rewards as acknowledgment
in any published paper or simply new knowledge.
Similarly, if a proprietary compound
that is already on the market is needed for a clinical trial for a different
indication, either a CRADA or a CTA could be an appropriate transfer mechanism.
In each of their three institutes, dozens of CTAs are executed annually, Portilla,
Fuchs, and Blaustein said. Often, they observed, the company values exchanging
use of their drug or device solely for the resulting data it needs for regulatory
purposes.
A key to executing the appropriate
agreement is specificity, Portilla emphasized, noting that NIH tech-transfer
officers are "a lot more savvy now than when we started out in 1989."
For instance, she said, "early
on, NHLBI had very broad research plans" in conjunction with CRADA agreements."Now
they are much more focused, so that an investigator working on a CRADA can work
on other lab research without its being implicated in the CRADA."
Instead of describing research material
as a cardiovascular agent, its use would be targeted to a more specific indication,
such as hypercardiomyopathy. In that way, the researcher could work on a different
compound applied to the same disease and in collaboration with other companies.
Blaustein offered the example of a
firm's wanting to collaborate on a treatment for "inflammatory diseases,"
which, in her office, was narrowed down to "inflammatory autoimmune disease.
Fuchs cited the need for flexibility
at the VRC, whose mandate to develop vaccines is often best met by being able
to partner with different companies that have different delivery technologies.
"We create the carve-out language" to allow, for example, one HIV
vaccine candidate to be tested in multiple contexts, she said.
For a list
of IC technology development coordinators, visit this
site.
The NIH Office of Technology Transfer is responsible for securing patents for NIH inventions and negotiating licenses for the commercialization of products that arise from those inventions (see "From Bench to Tech Transfer and Back to the NIH Scientist," The NIH Catalyst, May-June 2005). The other arm of tech transfer at NIH
resides within the institutes and centers, where collaborative research
and material transfer agreements between NIH labs and scientists and outside
entitiesindustry, academia, other U.S. government agencies, and
even foreign governmentsare negotiated. These arrangements vary
in complexity, are usually mutually beneficial, and invariably culminate
in expedited scientific advances and public health benefit. Among the most used and useful tech-
transfer mechanisms are:
|