PPP review: why companies are competing with academics for research partnerships
As the industry seeks to develop new ways to access external innovation, companies are re-evaluating the value of public-private partnerships, and increasingly turning to other companies for research partnerships in lieu of broad deals with academic institutions. BioCentury’s seventh annual analysis of PPPs shows that while enthusiasm for forming the partnerships has leveled off, inter-company research deals have risen sharply in the last two years.
Industry leaders who spoke with BioCentury attributed the shift to at least three factors. Aside from the ease in aligning priorities between companies, stakeholders point to opportunity costs of open-ended, single-institutional agreements and a growing distaste for multiparty consortia that lack follow-through or don’t wind up serving the company’s needs.
BioCentury Innovations defines a PPP as a preclinical research-based collaboration between at least one drug development company and at least one organization from the public sector, and excludes licensing deals and deals involving CROs.
PPPs still remain a core part of company strategies for identifying translational opportunities and exploring new biology. In the last four years, the number of new PPPs created has hovered between about 220 and 250 per year, although that represents a 17-27% drop from the 302 formed in 2013.
In the same period, the number of research partnerships between companies has quadrupled, rising from 17 in 2013 to 67 in 2016 and 69 last year. The trend is common to big pharma and smaller companies: in 2017, half of the alliances between companies involved one pharma; none involved alliances between two pharmas (see “PPP Alternatives”).
According to Juan Harrison, head of strategic academic alliances at Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., the change is partly due to the need for companies to access assets that can fuel their pipelines.
He said one factor is that it’s simple to partner with a company because it likely already has a strategy and mentality to progress candidates into products. “Companies have a