Professors Partner With Cambridge Biotech Firms

In 1978, Loeb University Professor Walter Gilbert '53, left his post as a tenured professor in molecular and cellular biology and set out to stake a claim in the emerging frontier of commercial biotechnology.

He helped found and direct Biogen, today the sixth-largest company in the biotechnology industry.

Though Gilbert returned to Harvard in 1987, links between the biotech industry and faculty members have developed into the diverse network of partnerships that exists today. Not only have some professors founded companies, but they serve on boards of directors and scientific advisory boards as well.

Mark S. Ptashne, former Smith professor of molecular biology, and Thomas P. Maniatis, Lee professor of molecular and cellular biology, founded Genetics Institute in 1980. Maniatis then served on the company's scientific advisory board and board of directors for 17 years, until the institute was bought out by American Home Products, a large Pharmaceutical company, in 1997.

"On the science advisory board, the main role was to critically evaluate the science and help plan and direct the direction of the science," Maniatis says. "On the board of directors, I was involved in strategic planning and the financial direction of the company."

Biotechnology companies may also benefit from research at Harvard by purchasing the rights to inventions developed in University labs or hiring professors to conduct publishable trials to test the safety of new products, says Steven Push, vice president for corporate communications at Genzyme, another Cambridge-based firm.

The companies cover the expenses of the trial but do not have to pay the researchers' salaries, and the researchers generally publish their results.

Academia vs. Commercialism

Despite the wide range of interactions betweenprofessors and biotechnology companies, there is aclear distinction between academic and industrialresearch.

"Science that's done in academia is generallyfocused on purely creating new knowledge," Gilbertsays. "The time horizon can be quite long; thecriterion is the significance of that knowledge."

In contrast, biotechnology firms are driven bycommercial motivations to engage in research thathas immediate practical applications, he says.

Because of their different motives, theresearch interests of academic and commercialscientists frequently diverge.

For the most part, the companies make drugsfrom human proteins, as they did twenty years ago,while academic scientists have moved on to newareas of research, Gilbert says.

"[Biotech research] involves medical knowledgebut no profound knowledge of how the world works,"he adds.

Gilbert also says commercial researchers maypick up where academic scientists leave off.

Because of their more applied researchinterests, Gilbert says scientists at HarvardMedical School (HMS) are more likely to shareresearch goals with industrial scientists.

Still, there are times when biotech companiesand professors at the College share the sameinterests, Gilbert says.

"Every once in a while you go through a periodwhen those two interests [of academia and ofindustry] overlap, and that's generally when wehave new companies develop," he says.

It was under such circumstances that Gilbertentered the biotech industry.

"There was a period in which the research I wasdoing in the late seventies was a hot researchtopic. It developed into [commercial]biotechnology," Gilbert says. "But the research Ido now, molecular evolution, that's not connectedwith [biotech] companies."

Restrictions on Faculty Involvement

Even those professors whose interests coincidewith those of private companies are restrained bythe Faculty and by HMS regulations governingfaculty interactions with industry.

Professors serving on advisory boards andboards of directors are prevented by theUniversity from spending more than 20 percent oftheir time on these outside interests, Gilbertsays.

The Faculty of Medicine, in its Policies onIntegrity in Science, advises professors "to avoidarrangements that might compromise [the Faculty's]intellectual principles."

In addition, professors are prevented fromdoing classified or proprietary research forcompanies because all research done at Harvardmust be publishable, according to MallinckrodtProfessor of Chemistry George M. Whitesides.

"Any research done at Harvard belongs toHarvard, in an intellectual property sense, sothere is a real effort to keep the research incompanies separate from the research in theuniversity labs," he says.

While research partnerships raise issues ofintegrity, professors and biotech companies agreethat consulting relationships are mutuallybeneficial.

Professors may gain access to research fundingand to patented technologies held only by thefirms.

"Being on [scientific advisory boards] givesus, in the University, a sense for the problems inmedicine and a sense for what the issues are inmoving science from discovery into products thatare used in treating disease," Whitesides says.

Gilbert says about one quarter of hispost-doctoral students typically accept jobs inindustrial firms, and contact with industry canthus be good for his students.

A relationship with professors at theUniversity also "gives the company access to abroader range of research than the company couldobtain itself," Maniatis says.

The Funding Debate

Facilitating the transfer of new scientificdevelopments to the private sector is one of theaims of the National Institutes of Health (NIH),Maniatis says.

A government agency, NIH provides grants toresearchers to advance scientific knowledge and totransfer new discoveries to private firms. Thefirms then develop drugs and treatments to helpthe public.

Biotechnology companies and universityresearchers can apply for NIH grants that supportbasic and clinical research. The process throughwhich these grants are distributed makes bothequally likely to receive the grants, Maniatissays.

NIH grants are awarded based on peer review, aprocess whereby fellow scientists reviewapplications for grants and decide which projectsseem most imperative.

"If a company comes out on top, then they getthe money," Maniatis says.

But companies rely very little on NIH grants,he adds. "[NIH grants] represent an exceedinglysmall amount of money the company gets," Maniatissays. "Most of the research is internally-fundedand goes toward the development of a drug."

Still, the role of the NIH as an agency whichfunds public research for private profit hasprovoked criticism, especially following a recentseries of articles in the Boston Globe onscientists who have gotten rich in the biotechindustry.

"[The Globe] left the impression that there arefreewheeling scientists out there getting rich,"Maniatis says.

Gilbert also refuted the Globe'scharacterization of the patent system as a way of"looting" the public.

Since the 1970s, when the government owned allpatents on scientific research, scientists, theUniversity and the legal system have come torealize that the system of government funding andpatents is necessary to encourage the discovery ofnew drugs, Gilbert says.

"[The patent system] is very effective with alimited social cost," Gilbert says. "The 10 yearsduring which you can charge what you will is shortcompared to the eternity [for which the public hasaccess to a scientist's invention]."File photoProfessor THOMAS P. MANIATIS

Academia vs. Commercialism

Despite the wide range of interactions betweenprofessors and biotechnology companies, there is aclear distinction between academic and industrialresearch.

"Science that's done in academia is generallyfocused on purely creating new knowledge," Gilbertsays. "The time horizon can be quite long; thecriterion is the significance of that knowledge."

In contrast, biotechnology firms are driven bycommercial motivations to engage in research thathas immediate practical applications, he says.

Because of their different motives, theresearch interests of academic and commercialscientists frequently diverge.

For the most part, the companies make drugsfrom human proteins, as they did twenty years ago,while academic scientists have moved on to newareas of research, Gilbert says.

"[Biotech research] involves medical knowledgebut no profound knowledge of how the world works,"he adds.

Gilbert also says commercial researchers maypick up where academic scientists leave off.

Because of their more applied researchinterests, Gilbert says scientists at HarvardMedical School (HMS) are more likely to shareresearch goals with industrial scientists.

Still, there are times when biotech companiesand professors at the College share the sameinterests, Gilbert says.

"Every once in a while you go through a periodwhen those two interests [of academia and ofindustry] overlap, and that's generally when wehave new companies develop," he says.

It was under such circumstances that Gilbertentered the biotech industry.

"There was a period in which the research I wasdoing in the late seventies was a hot researchtopic. It developed into [commercial]biotechnology," Gilbert says. "But the research Ido now, molecular evolution, that's not connectedwith [biotech] companies."

Restrictions on Faculty Involvement

Even those professors whose interests coincidewith those of private companies are restrained bythe Faculty and by HMS regulations governingfaculty interactions with industry.

Professors serving on advisory boards andboards of directors are prevented by theUniversity from spending more than 20 percent oftheir time on these outside interests, Gilbertsays.

The Faculty of Medicine, in its Policies onIntegrity in Science, advises professors "to avoidarrangements that might compromise [the Faculty's]intellectual principles."

In addition, professors are prevented fromdoing classified or proprietary research forcompanies because all research done at Harvardmust be publishable, according to MallinckrodtProfessor of Chemistry George M. Whitesides.

"Any research done at Harvard belongs toHarvard, in an intellectual property sense, sothere is a real effort to keep the research incompanies separate from the research in theuniversity labs," he says.

While research partnerships raise issues ofintegrity, professors and biotech companies agreethat consulting relationships are mutuallybeneficial.

Professors may gain access to research fundingand to patented technologies held only by thefirms.

"Being on [scientific advisory boards] givesus, in the University, a sense for the problems inmedicine and a sense for what the issues are inmoving science from discovery into products thatare used in treating disease," Whitesides says.

Gilbert says about one quarter of hispost-doctoral students typically accept jobs inindustrial firms, and contact with industry canthus be good for his students.

A relationship with professors at theUniversity also "gives the company access to abroader range of research than the company couldobtain itself," Maniatis says.

The Funding Debate

Facilitating the transfer of new scientificdevelopments to the private sector is one of theaims of the National Institutes of Health (NIH),Maniatis says.

A government agency, NIH provides grants toresearchers to advance scientific knowledge and totransfer new discoveries to private firms. Thefirms then develop drugs and treatments to helpthe public.

Biotechnology companies and universityresearchers can apply for NIH grants that supportbasic and clinical research. The process throughwhich these grants are distributed makes bothequally likely to receive the grants, Maniatissays.

NIH grants are awarded based on peer review, aprocess whereby fellow scientists reviewapplications for grants and decide which projectsseem most imperative.

"If a company comes out on top, then they getthe money," Maniatis says.

But companies rely very little on NIH grants,he adds. "[NIH grants] represent an exceedinglysmall amount of money the company gets," Maniatissays. "Most of the research is internally-fundedand goes toward the development of a drug."

Still, the role of the NIH as an agency whichfunds public research for private profit hasprovoked criticism, especially following a recentseries of articles in the Boston Globe onscientists who have gotten rich in the biotechindustry.

"[The Globe] left the impression that there arefreewheeling scientists out there getting rich,"Maniatis says.

Gilbert also refuted the Globe'scharacterization of the patent system as a way of"looting" the public.

Since the 1970s, when the government owned allpatents on scientific research, scientists, theUniversity and the legal system have come torealize that the system of government funding andpatents is necessary to encourage the discovery ofnew drugs, Gilbert says.

"[The patent system] is very effective with alimited social cost," Gilbert says. "The 10 yearsduring which you can charge what you will is shortcompared to the eternity [for which the public hasaccess to a scientist's invention]."File photoProfessor THOMAS P. MANIATIS