From the Editor's Desk

Slightly over a year ago, Dr. Jay Bradner of the Dana Farber Institute in Boston developed a molecule designed to treat a very rare form of cancer, midline carcinoma. He published the structure of the molecule, the method of synthesis, and sent samples of the drug to about forty other cancer research laboratories around the world. Then some laboratories worked on enhancing understanding of the molecule, such as performing x-ray crystallography studies to determine its structure. Other laboratories used the molecule to treat other types of cancer (most notably multiple myeloma) in animal models. In a speech given just a few months ago, Dr. Bradner exhibited the chemical structure of the prodrug based on the molecule developed in his lab and once again asked the community to work with him on developing this prodrug into a bioavailable compound that can be given to cancer patients. Dr. Bradner described this process, which is not typical for cancer research as “open source cancer research.” His approach contrasted directly with the secrecy that surrounds most drug discovery.

Taking this new and potentially risky approach to the development of new cancer drugs is exciting and could be a valuable tool in our battle against this deadly disease. With the constraints on resources that most of us face, perhaps rethinking our closed approach to certain types of research (such as biospecimen science) and adopting the approach that Dr. Bradner is trying (open or crowd sourcing) could be critical in advancing the field as a whole. The International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER) has used a crowd-sourcing approach for the development of proficiency testing. Groups achieved consensus on the elements of a basic proficiency testing protocol. A central facility prepared and distributed samples to be used for the testing at multiple, self-selected testing sites. This method dispersed the cost of developing proficiency testing and permitted beta-testing sites to establish their proficiency in advance of the community as a whole.

A crowd source research approach could be used to establish a scientifically sound, consensus-based method of grading or assessing historical samples in biorepositories. Individual biobanks rarely have funds set aside for this type of research, and it represents a financial risk, as any metric developed must be adopted by a larger community including individuals who discover biomarkers. This type of research is ideal for crowd sourcing as it would need to involve multiple stakeholders, and it has the potential to spread the cost (and therefore the financial risk) and hopefully, maximize the impact of the research.

It will be interesting to see if open source research will spread beyond drug discovery in academic institutions and will ripple out over other research areas such as biobanking. If so, Dr. Bradner's approach may have an impact beyond that of drug discovery for cancer.