Background: Knowledge in the era of Omics and Big Data has been increasingly conceptualized as a public good. Sharing of de-identified patient data has been advocated as a means to increase confidence and public trust in the results of clinical trials. On the other hand, research has shown that the current research and development model of the biopharmaceutical industry has reached its innovation capacity. In response to that, the biopharmaceutical industry has adopted open innovation practices, with sharing of clinical trial data being among the most interesting ones. However, due to the free rider problem, clinical trial data sharing among biopharmaceutical companies could undermine their innovativeness. Method: Based on the theory of public goods, we have developed a commons arrangement and devised a model, which enables secure and fair clinical trial data sharing over a Virtual Knowledge Bank based on a web platform. Our model uses data as a virtual currency and treats knowledge as a club good. Results: Fair sharing of clinical trial data over the Virtual Knowledge Bank has positive effects on the innovation capacity of the biopharmaceutical industry without compromising the intellectual rights, proprietary interests and competitiveness of the latter. Conclusion: The Virtual Knowledge Bank is a sustainable and self-expanding model for secure and fair clinical trial data sharing that allows for sharing of clinical trial data, while at the same time it increases the innovation capacity of the biopharmaceutical industry.

1.
DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG: The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: is biotech different? MDE Manage Decis Econ 2007;28:469-479.
2.
Munos B: Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2009;8:959-968.
3.
Vogler S, Zimmermann N, Leopold C, Joncheere KD: Pharmaceutical policies in European countries in response to the global financial crisis. South Med Rev 2011;4:69-79.
4.
Orloff J, Douglas F, Pinheiro J, Levinson S, Branson M, Chaturvedi P, Ette E, Gallo P, Hirsch G, Mehta C, Patel N, Sabir S, Springs S, Stanski D, Evers MR, Fleming E, Singh N, Tramontin T, Golub H: The future of drug development: advancing clinical trial design. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2009;8:949-957.
5.
Chesbrough H: An audience with… Henry Chesbrough. Interview by Asher Mullard. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2013;12:338-339.
6.
An open-source shot in the arm? The Economist, June 12, 2004.
7.
Munos B: Can open-source R&D reinvigorate drug research? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006;5:723-729.
8.
Chesbrough HW: Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press, September 30, 2005.
9.
Mello MM, Francer JK, Wilenzick M, Teden P, Bierer BE, Barnes M: Preparing for responsible sharing of clinical trial data. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1651-1658.
10.
Krumholz HM, Peterson ED: Open access to clinical trials data. JAMA 2014;312:1002-1003.
11.
Christakis DA, Zimmerman FJ: Rethinking reanalysis. JAMA 2013;310:2499-2500.
12.
Godlee F, Groves T: The new BMJ policy on sharing data from drug and device trials. BMJ 2012;345:e7888.
14.
Nisen P, Rockhold F: Access to patient-level data from GlaxoSmithKline clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2013;369:475-478.
15.
Strom BL, Buyse M, Hughes J, Knoppers BM: Data sharing, year 1 - access to data from industry-sponsored clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2014;371:2052-2054.
16.
Institute of Medicine: Sharing Clinical Research Data: Workshop Summary. Washington, National Academies Press, 2013.
17.
Health and Economic Analysis for an Evaluation of the Public-Private Partnerships in Health Care Delivery across Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/health/expert_panel/opinions/docs/003_assessmentstudyppp_en.pdf (accessed November 21, 2015).
19.
Marks. HM: The Progress of Experiment: Science and Therapeutic Reform in the United States, 1900-1990, ed 1. Cambridge Studies in the History of Medicine, 2000.
22.
https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com (accessed November 16, 2015).
23.
Hardin G: The tragedy of the commons. The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. Science 1968;162:1243-1248.
24.
Miller B, Malloy MA, Masek E, Wild C: Towards a framework for managing the information environment. Inf Knowl Syst Manage 2001;2:359-384.
25.
Archibugi D, Filippetti A: Knowledge as global public good; in Archibugi D, Filippetti A (eds): Handbook of Global Science, Technology and Innovation. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell, 2015, pp 483-597.
26.
Frischmann BM: Cultural Environmentalism and the Wealth of Networks. Univ Chic Law Rev 2007;74:1083.
27.
Frischmann BM, Madison MJ, Strandburg KJ: Governing Knowledge Commons. Oxford University Press, 2014.
28.
Ostrom E: The institutional analysis and development framework and the commons. Cornell L Rev 2010;95:807-816.
29.
Hess C, Ostrom E: Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. MIT Press, 2007.
30.
Hess C, Ostrom E: Ideas, artifacts and facilities: information as a common-pool resource. Law Contemp Probl 2003;66:111-145.
31.
Gyuris F: Basic education in communist Hungary. A commons approach. Int J Commons 2014;8:531-553.
32.
Cohen WM, Levinthal DA: Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 1990;35:128-152.
33.
Ostrom E, Ostrom V: The Meaning of American Federalism: Constituting a Self-Governing Society. San Francisco, Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1991.
34.
Buchanan JM: An economic theory of clubs. Economica. New Series 1965;32:1-14.
35.
Coase RH: The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 1960;3:1-44.
36.
https://www.biogrid.org.au (accessed March 22, 2016).
37.
https://www.midata.coop (accessed March 24, 2016).
38.
Becnel LB, Pereira S, Drummond JA, Gingras M-C, Covington KR, Kovar CL, Doddapaneni HV, Hu J, Muzny D, McGuire AL, Wheeler DA, Gibbs RA: An open access pilot freely sharing cancer genomic data from participants in Texas. Sci Data 2016;3:160010.
39.
Nakamoto S: 2008. Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (accessed March 22, 2016).
40.
Bonneau J, Miller A, Clark J, Narayanan A, Kroll JA, Felten EW: Research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. Security and Privacy (SP), 2015 IEEE Symposium, pp 104-121.
41.
Sharing Clinical Trial Data - A Proposal from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. NEJM.org, January 20, 2016.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.