OnCo
ideasIdea

A pre-competitive consortium to validate or kill academic targets before licensing

Companies and public funders would jointly pay for standardised experiments that confirm or refute new cancer targets, sharing all results openly, so nobody wastes years on a target that does not hold up.

A consortium modelled on the NIH Accelerating Medicines Partnership and Open Targets in which companies, funders and academic centres pool money to run standardised, blinded target validation (genetic dependency across large cell panels, in vivo knock-out in relevant models, human genetic and expression evidence, tool-compound pharmacology) on nominated academic oncology targets, with all data released publicly. Companies then compete downstream on chemistry and biology. This raises the quality of what enters the valley and removes duplicated validation efforts inside every company.

Hypothesis
Targets that pass consortium validation progress to lead optimisation at twice the rate of unvalidated academic targets, and published consortium negative results reduce industry programmes started on refuted targets within two years of release.
Rationale
AMP has produced widely used open datasets in Alzheimer's disease and type 2 diabetes and is credited with shifting industry target choice; Open Targets and DepMap are already the first stop for oncology target triage. The remaining gap is standardised in vivo validation with open release.
What would test it
Pilot with five companies and two funders on twenty nominated targets; release results and track downstream programme starts and licensing of validated versus refuted targets over three years.
Maturity
early clinical
Who has to act
industry
Cost to try
Medium ($1M to $50M)
Years to first evidence
4
Bottlenecks it attacks

Connected

9top

Pages like this

not linked directly; found by shared links