Wohaib Hasan, Daniel Simeon-Dubach, Vanessa Tumilasci, Peter Sebbel, Suenne Orth
{"title":"Challenges and Opportunities for Collaboration Between Academic Biobanks and Industry: Results of an International Survey of Academic Biobanks.","authors":"Wohaib Hasan, Daniel Simeon-Dubach, Vanessa Tumilasci, Peter Sebbel, Suenne Orth","doi":"10.1089/bio.2023.0156","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Aim of the Survey:</i></b> When it comes to collaboration between academic biobanks and the pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry, the criteria for effective collaborations are still unclear. Researchers in industry and academic biobanks can have different incentives and requirements that the other party is often not familiar with. This survey was conducted in an attempt to increase understanding of these fundamental knowledge gaps that may be obstacles to optimal collaboration between academia and industry. <b><i>Key Findings from the Survey:</i></b> There were 53 total respondents. Although this was a global survey, most respondents (<i>n</i> = 29) were from North America, likely reflecting overall investment in research in this region and possibly increased interactions between academia and industry as well. Most respondent academic biobanks collect multiple sample types with most (>90%) collecting both biofluids (including blood) and tissue. Most of the participating academic biobanks were aware that they were not (35%), or only partially (35%), using the full potential of their inventory. One option for increasing utilization rates is by collaborating with industry partners. The main issues when working with industry were perceived to be a combination of challenges including contractual (55%), consent restrictions (45%), timelines (41%), or time pressure (36%). Time taken to put agreements together was also a significant hurdle (54%), together with the industry's administrative requirements (36%). <b><i>Brief Conclusions from the Survey:</i></b> To take advantage of opportunities for joint collaboration, it is essential that the parties involved build trust. The first step is to understand the different requirements and needs of the other party and to establish efficient structures for joint cooperation. This survey has highlighted key areas to be addressed as the next steps for strengthening bonds between academic biobanks and industry partners.</p>","PeriodicalId":55358,"journal":{"name":"Biopreservation and Biobanking","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biopreservation and Biobanking","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2023.0156","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim of the Survey: When it comes to collaboration between academic biobanks and the pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry, the criteria for effective collaborations are still unclear. Researchers in industry and academic biobanks can have different incentives and requirements that the other party is often not familiar with. This survey was conducted in an attempt to increase understanding of these fundamental knowledge gaps that may be obstacles to optimal collaboration between academia and industry. Key Findings from the Survey: There were 53 total respondents. Although this was a global survey, most respondents (n = 29) were from North America, likely reflecting overall investment in research in this region and possibly increased interactions between academia and industry as well. Most respondent academic biobanks collect multiple sample types with most (>90%) collecting both biofluids (including blood) and tissue. Most of the participating academic biobanks were aware that they were not (35%), or only partially (35%), using the full potential of their inventory. One option for increasing utilization rates is by collaborating with industry partners. The main issues when working with industry were perceived to be a combination of challenges including contractual (55%), consent restrictions (45%), timelines (41%), or time pressure (36%). Time taken to put agreements together was also a significant hurdle (54%), together with the industry's administrative requirements (36%). Brief Conclusions from the Survey: To take advantage of opportunities for joint collaboration, it is essential that the parties involved build trust. The first step is to understand the different requirements and needs of the other party and to establish efficient structures for joint cooperation. This survey has highlighted key areas to be addressed as the next steps for strengthening bonds between academic biobanks and industry partners.
Biopreservation and BiobankingBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-General Biochemistry,Genetics and Molecular Biology
自引率
12.50%
发文量
114
期刊介绍:
Biopreservation and Biobanking is the first journal to provide a unifying forum for the peer-reviewed communication of recent advances in the emerging and evolving field of biospecimen procurement, processing, preservation and banking, distribution, and use. The Journal publishes a range of original articles focusing on current challenges and problems in biopreservation, and advances in methods to address these issues related to the processing of macromolecules, cells, and tissues for research.
In a new section dedicated to Emerging Markets and Technologies, the Journal highlights the emergence of new markets and technologies that are either adopting or disrupting the biobank framework as they imprint on society. The solutions presented here are anticipated to help drive innovation within the biobank community.
Biopreservation and Biobanking also explores the ethical, legal, and societal considerations surrounding biobanking and biorepository operation. Ideas and practical solutions relevant to improved quality, efficiency, and sustainability of repositories, and relating to their management, operation and oversight are discussed as well.