Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Outlook
  • Published:

Minimizing leakage of value from R&D alliances

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume 6, pages 711–719 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Alliances, which are a key component of the research and development (R&D) strategies of most major pharmaceutical companies, demand significant management time and resources. There is no doubt that considerable value can be derived from R&D alliances, and much has been written about how companies can maximize such value, but the issue of how the associated risks can be minimized has been neglected in comparison. Here, we summarize recent trends in alliance formation and discuss approaches to minimize risk in alliances, which are growing in importance as alliance activity increases.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Drug discovery deals 2003–2006: average value of deals.
Figure 2: Research and development deals 2003–2006: breakdown of financial terms.
Figure 3: Development deals (Phase I to Phase III) 2003–2006: value of deal terms.
Figure 4: Trends in retention of promotion rights: 2003–2006.
Figure 5: Diversity in alliance networks.
Figure 6: Risk factors and value leakage during the alliance life cycle.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Datamonitor. The pharmaceutical industry: Key events and trends shaping its current status and future direction. (Datamonitor, 2006).

  2. McCarthy, A. Perspective. NIBR Strategic Alliances. Jump-starting innovation. NIBR Sci. Summer, 29–32 (2004).

  3. GlaxoSmithKline. Press release 19 May: New GlaxoSmithKline Centre of Excellence for External Drug Discovery: Capturing the power of the alternative discovery initiative. (2005).

  4. Thiel, K. A. Goodbye Columbus! New NRDOs forego discovery. Nature Biotech. 22, 1087–1092 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Casper, L. & de Rond, M. The 'not invented here' myth. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 451–452 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Thiel, K. A. A very firm handshake: biotech's growing negotiating power. Nature Biotech. 23, 1221–1226 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ransom, J. Pipeline cherrypicking deal yields lucrative return. Nature Biotech. 24, 706–729 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Featherstone, J. & Renfrey, S. The licensing gamble: raising the stakes. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 107–108 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kalamas, J. & Pinkus, G. The optimum time for drug licensing. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 691–692 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones, A. & Clifford, L. Drug discovery alliances. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 807–808 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Arnold, C. J., Faerm, M. & Wuttke, M. Global Pharma M&Amp;A — intensifying interests. Credit Suisse Equity Research (March 2007).

  12. Mowerey, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N. & Ziedonis, A. A. The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects if the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Res. Policy 30, 99–119 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Edwards, M. G. Murray, F. & Yu, R. Value creation and sharing among universities, biotechnology and pharma. Nature Biotech. 21, 618–624 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mehta, S. The emerging role of academia in commercializing innovation. Nature Biotech. 22, 21–24 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mowerey, D. C. & Ziedonis, A. A. Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United Stated. Res. Policy 31, 399–418 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Greene, J. The Valuation Savvy Pharma Enterprise. Ernst & Young web site [online], (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ziegelbauer, K. & Farquhar, R. Strategic alliance management: lessons learned from the Bayer-Millennium collaboration. Drug Discov. Today 9, 864–868 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Parker, S. & Binns, R. Licensing: preparing for some 'worst case' scenarios. Pharm. Law Insight 8, 8–10 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks L. Wright, Ernst and Young, for her support in data collection and analysis for figures 1,2,3,4.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Andrew Jones is Ernst & Young's pharmaceutical analyst at 1 More London Place, London, UK. ajones5@uk.ey.com or pharmaceuticals@uk.ey.com,

    Andrew Jones

Authors
  1. Andrew Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Related links

Related links

DATABASES

Bioentrepreneur

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health

National Institute for Clinical Excellence

Swedish Council for Technology Assessment in Health Care

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, A. Minimizing leakage of value from R&D alliances. Nat Rev Drug Discov 6, 711–719 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2357

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2357

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing