Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$29.75



View/Hide Left Panel

Appendix B
Polling Results

At two points during the conference, participants attending the workshop in person were given individual keypads to respond to a series of questions posed by John Wagner, chair of the workshop planning committee. He noted that he was sampling a very small population (22 responses were obtained) biased toward seeing the value to collaborations, so the results featured below, though of interest, are by no means scientific or representative of the community of biomedical researchers.

Questions

Responses

Percentage

Count

What organization do you represent?

Government

0

0

Industry

32

7

Academia

18

4

Nonprofit

23

5

Other

27

6

Have you personally participated in a precompetitive collaboration?

Yes

52

11

No

48

10

Has your institution/company participated in a precompetitive collaboration?

Yes

77

17

No

23

5



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 95
Appendix B Polling Results At two points during the conference, participants attending the work- shop in person were given individual keypads to respond to a series of ques- tions posed by John Wagner, chair of the workshop planning committee. He noted that he was sampling a very small population (22 responses were obtained) biased toward seeing the value to collaborations, so the results fea- tured below, though of interest, are by no means scientific or representative of the community of biomedical researchers. Responses Questions Percentage Count What organization do you represent? Government 0 0 Industry 32 7 Academia 18 4 Nonprofit 23 5 Other 27 6 Have you personally participated in a precompetitive collaboration? Yes 52 11 No 48 10 Has your institution/company participated in a precompetitive collaboration? Yes 77 17 No 23 5 

OCR for page 95
 PRECOMPETITIVE COLLABORATION IN ONCOLOGY RESEARCH Responses Questions Percentage Count How important do you feel precompetitive collaboration is to biomedical research? Not at all important 5 1 Somewhat important 0 0 Important 5 1 Very important 23 5 Critical 68 15 Which research activity do you feel can benefit most from precompetitive collaboration? Bioinformatics/software development 4 1 Data generation/collection efforts 35 8 Basic research 17 4 Translational/disease-focused research 35 8 Product-oriented research 9 2 What do you see as the biggest hurdle to precompetitive collaboration in biomedicine? Individualist/competitive culture among academics 30 6 Proprietary culture of industry 25 5 Intellectual property issues 25 5 Academic promotion/tenure process 15 3 Publications 0 0 Patient privacy concerns 5 1 How relevant/applicable are industry collaborations, such as SEMATECH, to biomedical research? Not at all important 0 0 Somewhat important 16 3 Important 16 3 Very important 42 8 Critical 26 5 How relevant/applicable are prizes, such as InnoCentive offers, to biomedical research? Not at all important 0 0 Somewhat important 42 8 Important 26 5 Very important 21 4 Critical 11 2

OCR for page 95
 APPENDIX B Responses Questions Percentage Count How relevant/applicable are True Open Source Collaborations, such as Linux, to biomedical research? Not at all important 0 0 Somewhat important 26 5 Important 26 5 Very important 21 4 Critical 26 5

OCR for page 95