Experts praise cooperative groups (e.g., Chartered, Stampede) for conducting large studies and preserving samples for future biomarker research. These publicly funded efforts can address fundamental clinical questions that industry-sponsored trials may not prioritize, ultimately advancing the field.
Related Insights
Voyager CEO Al Sandrock views partnerships as more than just revenue. He emphasizes that strong scientific collaborations are invaluable because direct interaction between partner scientists accelerates learning and overall progress for both organizations. This intellectual cross-pollination is a key, often overlooked, benefit of partnering out platform technology.
US biotechs increasingly use sites like Australia to accelerate development, as Create Medicines did by moving from concept to clinic in under 12 months. What was once viewed with suspicion is now a key strategy to generate data faster and more cheaply, competing with the speed of China's ecosystem.
The rapid advancement of ARPIs wasn't just a scientific breakthrough. It was a rare convergence of FDA interest in new endpoints, a deeper biological understanding of castration resistance, and intense industry and academic collaboration that created a uniquely fertile ground for innovation.
CZI's Biohub model hinges on a simple principle: physically seating biologists and engineers from different institutions (Stanford, UCSF, Berkeley) together. This direct proximity fosters collaboration and creates hybrid experts, overcoming the institutional silos often reinforced by traditional grant-based funding.
While its internal pipeline targets oncology, LabGenius partners with companies like Sanofi to apply its ML-driven discovery platform to other therapeutic areas, such as inflammation. This strategy validates the platform's broad applicability while securing non-dilutive funding to advance its own assets towards the clinic.
Treating 'non-clear cell' kidney cancer as a single entity is a major research limitation. Experts argue that distinct histologies like papillary and chromophobe are different diseases. Future progress requires dedicated, international trials for each subtype rather than grouping them due to rarity.
CZI focuses on creating new tools for science, a 10-15 year process that's often underfunded. Instead of just giving grants, they build and operate their own institutes, physically co-locating scientists and engineers to accelerate breakthroughs in areas traditional funding misses.
CZI set an audacious goal to cure all disease. When scientists deemed it impossible, CZI's follow-up question, "Why not?" revealed the true bottleneck wasn't funding individual projects, but a systemic lack of shared tools, which then became their core focus.
Instead of funding small, incremental research grants, CZI's philanthropic strategy focuses on developing expensive, long-term tools like AI models and imaging platforms. This provides leverage to the entire scientific community, accelerating the pace of the whole field.
Clinical trial sites are increasingly leveraging their power to demand protocol modernization from sponsors. Merck changed its internal processes to allow non-physician sub-investigators only after a site refused to participate without that flexibility. This shows that operational change can be driven from the ground up by partners, not just top-down by sponsors.