OK Ewan?

COORDINATION AND SUSTAINABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL MOUSE INFORMATICS

RESOURCES

WORKPACKAGE 6: Data acquisition, curation and ownership

Nadia RosenthalMouse Biology UnitEMBL-Monterotondo

1. University of Cambridge (Schofield)

2B. MRC-Edinburgh (Davidson)

3. GBF Braunschweig (Schughart)

4. GSF Munich (Hrabe di Angelis)

5A. EMBL-Monterotondo (Rosenthal)

5B. EMBL-EBI (Birney)

6. Fleming Institute Athens (Aidinis)

8. GENESERVICES Cambridge (Weaver)

WP6: Participants

• Assessment and recommendations for data quality control

• Financial and scientific assessment of curation practices in existing databases

• Effect of IPR issues on database submissions• Recommendations to overcome problems

WP6: Objectives

To address issues that affect database use and

viability, financially and scientifically:• quality of data• systems set up to validate data • mode of curation • barriers to the free flow of information into

databases generated by perceived IPR issues

WP6: Purpose

The contribution of this work package is the assessment of data acquisition by the relevant databases.

The accuracy of data and data annotation is crucial if databases are going to be widely supported by the scientific community.

WP6: Rationale

Other factors which affect data submission: real or perceived IPR issues that restrict or delay data submission

Databases will only contribute the maximum added value if they contain as much information as possible.

This information will be essential for assuring database sustainability.

WP6: Rationale

Public reporting is necessary to stimulate debate in the community of Researchers, Industry and National policymakers.

This work package will generate a report to inform the discussions taking place in other Commission funded projects, funding agencies and policymakers, and with international partners.

WP6: Rationale

1. Examine current practice in existing databases regarding

• data quality assurance

• traceability

• provenance

Reach a community consensus of best practice.

WP6: Workplan

2. Assess the range and costs of

• curatorial practices

• annotation strategies

Compare the advantages and disadvantages of human expert curation and annotation

WP6: Workplan

3. Gather information concerning IPR concerns from the Participants and other stakeholders

Compare practices between different funding agencies, companies and institutions

Conduct round table talks to discuss a common approach to IPR constraints on data submission.

Supported by EMBL Enterprise Management (EMBLEM) Technology Transfer GmbH.

WP6: Workplan

EMBLEM: EMBL Enterprise Management

ETF: EMBL Technology Fund

Discovery ProtectIdea

Start UpCompany

EMBL EMBLEM

ETF

Licensing

Technology Transfer at EMBL

EMBLEM Facts and Figures

• Wholly owned limited liability company (GmbH) of EMBL

• Established in 1999 to accelerate the transfer of basic research-derived Intellectual Property for commercial industrial applications

• A partner of the European Space Agency (ESA) and the German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ)

• More than 160 licensees including all the major players in the biotech/pharma/instrumentation market(s)

• Over 250 active license contracts in place

• More than 50 invention disclosures/year

• ca. 300 MTAs, 100 CDAs and 40 IIAs executed per year

• 8 spin-out companies

• Current Portfolio: >200 granted patents and patent applications 37 © (software/databases) 19 ® trademarks

EMBLEM Activities

• Identify, develop and protect IP

• Commercialisation (license, collaboration and consultancy agreements)

• NDAs/CDAs, MTAs, IPR Issues

• IP portfolio management

• Market potential and value assessment

• Structuring of EMBL spin-outs (IP portfolio, management, infrastructure)

• Training and Education

4. Recommendations as to how the community might be encouraged to contribute at least publicly funded data to public databases.

WP6: Workplan

5. Investigate the potential for public/private domains in large databases as a potential source of funding with Biotech SMEs and the Pharma participants.

WP6: Workplan

• Month 18: Development and release of a community consensus statement of good practice for database curation through a publication on the CASIMIR web portal (from WP meeting in Year 1)

• Month 24: Production of a discussion document on the potential role of public databases for the Biotech/Pharma industry to be published in the scientific literature

WP6: Deliverables

• Month 27: Report on the issues inhibiting data

deposition in public databases• Report on IPR issues and the position of funding

agencies to facilitate policy development for the future of mouse functional genomics (from WP meeting in Year 2)

WP6: Deliverables

• Month 18: preparation of Community consensus statement on good practice

• Month 27 : Preparation of Paper on role of public databases for the Biotech/Pharma industry and potential funding models

• Months 10, 21, 33: Three annual networking meetings

WP6: Milestones