“A good collaboration is based on unique contributions from each side”: assessing the dynamics of collaboration in stem cell science

Abstract

The rise of ‘big biology’ is bringing academic and industrial scientists together in large consortia to address translational challenges in the life sciences. In order to assess the impact of this change, this paper examines the existing norms and styles of collaboration in one high profile translational domain; stem cell research. Data is drawn from qualitative interviews with academic and industry scientists working in a large European stem cell research project. Respondents discussed what they perceived as the main benefits and risks of collaborative research, what styles of collaboration they were familiar with, and what collaborative work in stem cell science normally involves. A wide range of materials, data, and expertise can be exchanged during collaborative work. Informal collaborations are governed by an ethos of reciprocity and mediated by trust while formal project agreements can provide a safe space for sharing between unfamiliar partners. These characteristics make stem cell research well suited to pre-competitive public-private ventures but translation of new products to market may be more challenging.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40504-017-0053-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Unscripted Responsible Research and Innovation: Adaptive space creation by an emerging RRI practice concerning juvenile justice interventions

“…Similarly, Stokols et al ( 2008 ) contend that non-hierarchical organizational forms of transdisciplinary collaboration support inclusiveness and maximises collaboration. Moreover, informal approaches have recently also been found in similar collaborations between scientists and companies in the highly commercialized domain of global pharma (Morrison 2017 ), indicating that informality is not restricted to collaborations characterized by a low degree of market pressure, such as the collaboration described in this paper. Although two of the five JJI’s involved in the collaboration described here were privately owned – the three others are under government control – JJI’s mainly cater to specific regionally designated areas, meaning that competition is relatively low compared to most commercial organisations.…”

The RA-MAP Consortium: a working model for academia–industry collaboration

“…Over the past few years, the relative failure by scientists to reap the benefits of the genomics revolution, along with the pressing challenges and perceived opportunities that accompany the analysis of ‘big data’, have led to a concerted drive towards the development of cooperative academia–industry initiatives across a range of diseases 1,2 . This move towards consortia acknowledges the need to advance health care initiatives in a systematic way and places emphasis on the collective harnessing of knowledge, resources and expertise in ways that are both complementary and mutually beneficial to all parties 3–6 . Central to these initiatives has been the creation of nonexclusive consortia in pre-competitive areas of research (research aimed at the generation of new knowledge) that capitalize on expertise from multiple sources and reward all partners for their contributions 7,8 .…”

Governance of research consortia: challenges of implementing Responsible Research and Innovation within Europe

“…Such large, multi-national, multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary groupings increase the potential for conflicts about co-ordination and organisation of the work, allocation of resources and workloads, assignment of credit and authority within the project, different management styles, and what researchers in different fields, different countries or at different levels of seniority hope to get out of the collaboration (Hackett 2005 ; Shrum et al 2001 ). Companies working with academic scientists almost always require formal contractual measures to govern the ownership and distribution of intellectual property rights arising from the work, while contractual arrangements can provide reassuring safeguards for academic researchers working with unfamiliar new colleagues (Morrison 2017 ).…”

“…This study draws on the authors' collective experience as interdisciplinary members of a substantial number of life sciences research consortia, and in particular our knowledge of the contractual clauses and governance arrangements (e.g. Kaye et al 2015;Morrison et al 2015;Morrison 2017;Muddyman et al 2013;Teare et al 2018). The focus is necessarily European, both in terms of the definition of 'consortia' to reflect the norms of EU projects; and in terms of the interactions between project governance and legal instruments such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).…”