To their surprise, 70 percent of the external input came from scientists at for-profit pharmaceutical companies. While this may partially signal a reluctance of academic scientists to get involved with open source efforts, it also shows that some industry scientists are independently interested in working on these topics. Musselwhite from UAEM believes that for many pharmaceutical scientists, contributing to broader science efforts may be a source of pride.
Though the efforts are individual and voluntary, pharmaceutical companies can encourage this sort of activity at the institutional level. They can ensure scientists are aware of ongoing open source efforts, and if their work schedule permits, allow interested scientists to work on these issues.
—
Throughout my interviews, I was struck by how deeply engaged the pharmaceutical executives were with neglected diseases. For most, this work was a testament to how globalized our world now is. “GSK works all around the world, including in places with huge malaria and TB burden,” said Cammack. “You have to show people that we treat the diseases in their areas.” Herrling from Novartis added that in the past decade, “society has seen how quickly diseases from far away can come back and bite the rich world.”
The efforts also appear to reflect a changing perception of pharmaceutical companies’ role in society. “Big Pharma has made a lot of mistakes in the past,” said Sebbag from Sanofi, “and today, it is unacceptable for the private sector to not be a partner of public health.”
Regardless of the motivation, this activity is highly encouraging. There is still a long way to go, but between innovative partnerships, open access, and deeper investments, the pharmaceutical industry can help make significant strides forward in neglected disease research.
