A EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM 
FOR GLOBAL ANIMAL HEALTH (ETPGAH)

 

 

Working Group 2 “Technology Transfer and Exchange” - Report

Brussels, 1 December 2005

 

 

Final, 19 December 2005

 

Intervet / Paul Van Aarle (Chair)

GALV / Ian Maudlin (Vice-chair)

CEVA / Jerôme Thevenon

CVO DK / Preben Willeberg

Hipra / Enric Espuña

Ingenasa Madrid / Carmen Vela

INRA / Thierry Gauthier

Merial / Caroline Schumacher

OIE / Christianne Bruschke

Pfizer / Jeremy Salt

Tridelta / Kieren Walshe (for Dr Barrett)

University of Nova, Lisboa / Manuel J.T. Carrondo

Vakzine Projekt Management / Albrecht Läufer

IFAH-Europe / Jim Scudamore (minutes)

IFAH-Europe / M. Chaton-Schaffner

IFAH-Europe / D. O’Brien

IFAH-Europe / H. Marion

 

Observer

EC / B. Arbelot

EC / I. Minguez-Tudela

EC / Ph. Steinmetz

 

Apologies

Lohmann Animal Health / Dietmar Flock

Merial / Michel Bublot

SVANOVA / Malik Merza

VLA / Trevor Drew

 

 

 

Agenda

 

Welcome

D. O’Brien

Presentation agenda points out of Concept SRA
(WG1, 2 and 3)

J. Scudamore

Presentation disease prioritization

P. van Aarle

Split up in 2 sub-groups

Discussion agenda points SRA and disease prioritization

 

Wrap up discussion and prepare short presentation per sub-group

 

Formulation / edit agenda points for SRA

J. Scudamore

 

 

Minutes

 

Introduction

 

1.  Mr Declan O’Brien, Chair of the European Technology Platform for Global Animal Health (ETPGAH), updated the group on the progress to date. The chairs of the 3 working groups had met to prepare the agenda for the meetings and to discuss the layout and content of the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA). The Executive Board of the Platform discussed a range of issues including the work of the 3 groups during a recent teleconference. Mr O’Brien was pleased to announce that the vision document for the platform had been finalised. IFAH-Europe had arranged for 4000 copies to be printed. He asked  representatives at the meeting to distribute the vision document as widely as possible. Good progress was being made. Mr O’Brien thanked Professor Scudamore for his work in producing the initial drafts of the Strategic Research Agenda.  

 

The Strategic Research Agenda (SRA)

 

2. Professor Scudamore summarised the current position with the development of the SRA. An initial rough draft had been prepared for use at the working group meetings. It was anticipated that this would be subject to considerable revision following the meetings. The initial draft was based on the outcome of the first series of working group meetings which had concentrated on research needs and rationale for the research requirements. Consequently there was little in the initial SRA detailing specific research requirements. It was important to identify specific areas for research during the current meeting of the working group. In addition methods to overcome the barriers to the development and delivery of new and improved tools to control diseases of major importance were needed.

 

3.  Professor Scudamore outlined the proposed format for the SRA document and re-emphasised the importance of including specific research requirements. It was also important to develop an action plan for the implementation of the SRA. Potential sources of funding would need to be identified especially as the EU Framework 7 funding was only one of a number of potential sources.

 

Presentation on Disease prioritisation

 

4. Paul van Aarle set the scene with a presentation on disease prioritisation. A copy of the presentation is on the ETPGAH website at www.ifah.be/europe/euplatform/platform.htm.

He based his analysis on the OIE disease list although other diseases may be of significance to the EU. The analysis was quantitative rather than qualitative and accepted that different stakeholders would have different priorities. There had to be a balance between what is available and what is needed. Paul van Aarle suggested a simple scoring system of 0 to 5  for a number of set criteria for each disease on the list. These criteria included: societal relevance to the EU, food safety, direct economic impact, trade consequences, risk of introduction, zoonotic properties and impact on developing countries

 

5. From this analysis a group of 10 top diseases were identified. These are listed in his presentation. There was an extensive discussion of the list especially as diseases such as BSE and Scrapie were missing. BSE was a good example of a disease where there was high societal interest and where the current control measures were extremely expensive. Public perception and political importance had to be included in the list of criteria. Limiting the work of the platform to only ten diseases also posed a potential problem especially as there would be different priorities in different geographical areas of the EU. A more developed methodology was needed to address priorities. It was also pointed out that in the developing countries the delivery of products to the users was very difficult due to the decline in the efficiency of the veterinary services. The work of the platform was not necessarily to find the ideal vaccine or test but to identify the most effective in the relevant circumstances.

 

6.  A gap analysis was presented which sought to answer a range of  questions about the present situation and future needs. Questions included: what do we have? do we need a vaccine or a test? are there vaccines and tests available? do we have the knowledge necessary to control the disease? A separate table was produced relating  each of the top 10 diseases to the perceived requirements.

 

Sub Group discussions on disease prioritisation

 

8. Following the presentation on prioritisation by Paul van Aarle, two sub groups considered a number of issues in more detail. Each sub group prepared a report which was presented for discussion by the whole working group

 

9. Sub-Group 1 chaired by Ian Maudlin considered disease prioritisation in more detail by reviewing the top 30 disease list and revising individual scores. More disease candidates were identified and prioritized. The report of the sub-group is at annex 1

 

10. The report from sub-group 1 raised many questions concerning the practicality of prioritising diseases and the criteria which should be used. Questions related to the correctness and relevance of the criteria adopted, the scoring method, the way to reflect the views of governments, inclusion of the risks or potential risks to Europe, inclusion of society’s perception as a criteria and why the disease was a priority. It was difficult to define which were the priorities but if all the relevant factors could be considered it would be possible to prepare a priority list from which the priorities for the Strategic Research Agenda could be prepared.

 

11. Sub- Group 2 chaired by Carolin Schumacher was asked to define if research is still needed for the listed diseases and if so in what direction and in what areas. The sub-group also considered the technology currently available and that which was needed.

 

12. The sub-group considered the initial list of disease priorities and the most effective way in which to identify the gaps and research requirements. A table was developed with the main diseases across the horizontal axis and the research requirements down the vertical axis. In doing this it was possible to develop a matrix which clearly indicated the gaps and needs for each of the diseases under consideration. In the time available it was only possible to produce an outline and much more intensive input is required to complete and validate the chart for the diseases listed.

 

13. The research areas which the sub-group identified included: mapping, disease prioritisation, sourcing strategy, response capacity, new product needs, evaluation of existing products, knowledge of the disease, research into control methods, technology transfer. Each of the diseases was considered against the specific headings. A summary of the headings produced by the sub-group is shown at annex 2

 

14. In the general discussion the problems of transfer of scientific findings into policy and legislation was raised especially with the need for peer review and advice to the policy makers. The fundamental question was the way in which the SRA could incorporate all these requirements.

 

Technology Transfer

 

15. A gap existed between the research scientist and the development process. Europe had many of the best scientists but this was not reflected in the number of successful  patent applications. Part of the problem was that scientists did not develop their ideas to the proof of concept stage with the result that the industry was often not able to develop the idea. It was important for the scientists to develop their ideas to proof of concept stage by ensuring stability of a compound, reproducibility of test results, purity of the material, scalability and finally safety and efficacy. This should be a minimum requirement before a product or idea could be exploited by the industry.

 

16. The industry is always on the look out for a market but has to be convinced that the development of an idea is worth funding. The development of products which have not reached the proof of concept stage (POC) is not an attractive proposition for the industry. It is good practice to develop to the POC stage at which time the industry steps in to develop a potential end product. Research institutes are not interested in this part of the process for a number of reasons not least the cost of the process.

 

17. The identification of innovative ideas is crucial to technology transfer as is the exploitation of ideas through the development of new products to a stage where they are authorised and manufactured. This is becoming increasingly important as the research funders expect to see concrete developments and products delivered to the market. If the issue of proof of concept is overcome the successful transfer of technology can be achieved in a number of ways. Possible models include;-

 

18. A further area involving technology transfer concerns product already available but which are not used in the developing countries either due to lack of knowledge or lack of funds to purchase and apply the product. This relates  also  to the global perspective of the platform especially in terms of EU cooperation and EU aid to developing countries. Capacity building in the developing world is also a major issue. EU research funding into disease control measures would help capacity building in the developing countries and would improve access by the EU research workers to the diseases which may not be present in Europe at the present time. Financing of the joint projects by the EU would be an important way of capacity building in the developing countries. The Global Alliance for Livestock Vaccines (GALV) will obtain funding to transfer available products from the shelf to the market by funding products which are commercially unviable at present.

 

Intellectual Property rights

 

19.  The problems related to intellectual property rights (IPR) had been identified at the first meeting of the working group. Whilst these were major problems the solution to many of these was outside the remit of the working group. No specific research needs were identified but it was clear this was an important area where improvements were needed in order to enable the development of innovative tools to control disease. IPR should be seen as a hurdle as it is an essential prerequisite to the development and use of innovative ideas. Four specific actions were identified:

 

20. The situation varied from research establishment to establishment. Some research institutes were geared up to patent ideas but in many cases the universities were not. The problem was that universities in general did not patent their discoveries nor did they develop their ideas to the proof of concept stage. From an industry perspective the development work involved a great deal of investment and was not practical in many circumstances which meant that potential innovations were lost.

 

Conclusions

 

21. Professor Scudamore summarised the provisional conclusions of the working group. It was apparent that a disease prioritisation methodology was needed but could be complicated to develop especially with the wide range of criteria which had to be considered. A start had been made by the group but would need to be continued as part of the SRA. The prioritised list so far used had been incorporated in the matrix table which was beginning to identify the diseases, the gaps in the research and the research requirements. This matrix could be developed for the priority diseases but would need more work to finalise and complete.

 

22. Other areas for consideration for the SRA which had emerged during the discussion included:

 

23. A number of barriers to the efficient transfer of technology had been identified. Various steps could be taken to improve technology transfer and it was important for these to be included in the SRA. The conclusions of the working group would be incorporated into the SRA which would be redrafted to take account of the discussion of the three working groups. The revised SRA would identify prioritisation and research needs for the diseases as the main component but would then expand on the enabling research, regulatory issues and enabling environment to facilitate the delivery and development of new products.

 

Work Plan

 

 

24. The following work plan was agreed by the working group:

 

Annex 1

 

Group 1

December 1st, 2005

Disease Prioritisation

 

List from WG 1 is mapping list.

 

Paul van Arle list is a priority list  - headings for priority on top of list.  Societal relevance – does it cover BSE?  Yes, but high score on this issue alone does not make it a priority.

 

Some diseases, such as BSE, have a high public profile and necessitate research regardless of objective scores in grid system.

 

Two lists compared on board – top 15 of both lists.

 

Bovine Tuberculosis/ Para Tuberculosis

Classical Swine Fever/ Bovine Viral Diarrhoea

FMD

Influenza

Parasitic Diseases/ Neglected Parasitic Diseases

Rabies

Food-borne Diseases (Salmonella, Campylobacter, others)

TSE

West Nile Fever

 

Bluetongue

Brucellosis

Clamidia

Cryptosporidiosis

Emerging Diseases

Leptospirosis

Neglected Zoonoses

Q Fever

Rift Valley Fever

Zoonoses from non human primate

 

 

 

Most important discussion points:

 

 
Annex 2 Group 2 Chair Carolin Schumacher

 

Research areas

 

1

Mapping

Map Research, Technologies, Patents etc

 

 

 

Identify existing products worldwide – identify gaps

 

2

Disease Prioritization

Develop a risk-based disease prioritization model for Europe

 

3

Sourcing strategy development

Develop a risk-based souring strategy for required product from within and outside the EU 

 

4

Response capacity

Develop contingency plans

 

5

New product needs

 

 

6

Evaluation of existing products

Evaluation of products (EU and worldwide) to match minimum requirement for purity, safety, efficacy (individual/herd level)

 

 

 

Test against new requirement in field (DIVA on herd level, new species, new application)

 

7

Knowledge of the Diseases

Surveillance and epidemiology

 

 

 

Pathologies

 

 

 

Immunology on individual level ()

 

 

 

Identification of relevant antigens for diagnostics

 

 

 

Efficacy of sanitary control

 

8

Research into control methods

Efficacy of sanitary control

 

 

 

Efficacy of produts in diseases control on herd level (prevent disease, transmission, shedding, infection)

 

 

 

Analysis of disease and control (pharmaco-economics) economics

 

 

 

Capacity building of Veterinary services / improving access to control/tools/field competencies in endemic and non-endemic countries

 

9

Technology Transfer (TT)

Foster passage from research to application  by protection of intellectual property (IP) through patenting

 

 

 

Move research to Proof of Concept as enabler to TT (purity, reproducibility, scalability, safety, efficacy)

 

 

 

Foster understanding of what is required to what is critical to move to application (training/communication/collaboration)

 

 

 

Foster TT from industry in EU to industry in developing countries (i.e. for exotic diseases) (INCO-DG Research + DG AID/Development)

 

 

 

Review mechanisms (incl. Timing) for transformation of research findings into disease control policies and legislation

 

*