Open Science And A Robust IP Strategy: Life Sciences Can Do Both
By Richard Gold
As biotech companies face decreasing productivity, they need ways to do more with less, and fast. A fresh approach to achieve this is by rethinking how innovation is structured: collaborate early and openly, protect intellectual property (IP) later. By starting with open science to reduce duplication and encourage collaboration, and then introducing IP protections downstream to support commercialization and sustainability, firms can reduce risk, cut costs, and accelerate innovation.
Open science and intellectual property are often framed as opposing forces pitting sharing against control, but it is a myth that they are mutually exclusive. There are many ways to incorporate open science in an IP strategy, like choosing forms of IP compatible with open sharing, such as regulatory exclusivities, reputational advantage, certification marks, or lead time. In the current landscape, one could even argue that a successful IP strategy requires participation in open science and that by combining strategies, in the right order, you have the potential to accelerate innovation. A real opportunity for life science firms is to sequence them strategically, positioning them to move fast, attract partners, and deliver impact.
For platform-based companies, open science provides a way to prove their technology works without giving up control or exclusivity over their most valuable innovations. For example, a firm that uses its platform to develop treatments for rare diseases, antibiotic-resistant infections, or future pandemics can share those assets openly while still protecting the underlying platform and other related discoveries with larger markets through patents.
Open Science Efficiencies
Through our work at Conscience, we've connected with several companies that are drawn to this approach. Typically, these companies are working in areas where market solutions are limited, and discovery and development of treatments are difficult to fund. The cost (in both time and money) of patents is hard to justify. By openly sharing assets, companies can publish results, demonstrating value. This openness can lead to positive visibility and publicity, attracting both investors and mission-driven employees who want to contribute to the public good. Should the firm move forward with clinical trials on the shared asset, it can still secure regulatory exclusivity, which offers similar protection to a patent.
Securing biotech funding is hard, and it is even harder when working on novel targets where results are uncertain. One of the most successful examples of overcoming this barrier through open science is the development of a drug targeting the protein WDR5, resulting in the largest Canadian preclinical deal ever.
Building on work by the Structural Genomic Consortium (SGC), which revealed the structure of WDR5, researchers at the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (OICR) developed a chemical probe to better understand how the target functions. Rather than patenting the probe, they shared it openly, allowing scientists around the world to quickly test it. A leading researcher discovered a flaw, which they rapidly fixed and then re-released an improved version. Because the probe was freely available, researchers in Australia, the U.S., and Austria immediately began using it in their own studies. Within a short time they uncovered links between WDR5 and several forms of cancer, publishing results in top scientific journals.
Because of their open work on WDR5, the OICR researchers were in a stronger position than competitors to use this knowledge, and were able to develop a drug candidate targeting WDR5, which they then patented. Within three years, they had licensed it to pharmaceutical company Celgene in an historic deal. Although the drug asset ultimately did not succeed in clinical development, it spurred ongoing productive investigation into a branch of leukemia biology and treatment. By using open science to accelerate early research and collaboration and only introducing IP protection at the right stage, the OICR effectively had a two-year lead over potential competitors, making the investment highly attractive.
Open Science In Drug Discovery
Outside of biotech, AI drug discovery companies also have much to gain by participating in open science initiatives. For example, Conscience’s CACHE Challenges give companies using computational approaches to drug discovery an opportunity to test their models on real-world drug targets with experimentally validated data. By participating in an open competition in which all data, after a short embargo period, are made publicly available, companies benefit from not only their own results but also those of their competitors. This format allows them to benchmark and improve their own models, and also to learn from others, accelerating model development beyond what any one company could achieve on its own.
Although CACHE results are eventually made public and participants are asked to describe their methods at a high level, nothing prevents them from patenting their computational models or applying them commercially after the challenge. In fact, by improving performance and demonstrating value through participation, companies can strengthen the case for downstream IP and monetization.
By keeping all predictions patent-free, the CACHE Challenges reduce costs, eliminate delays, and open the door to further research and validation. They also provide pharmaceutical and venture capital firms with a unique window into AI-assisted drug discovery, benefiting not only the firms that participate, but potential partners and researchers across the globe.
Open Science First, IP Protections Second
By sharing early-stage tools and data openly, firms can minimize duplication, de-risk R&D, strengthen their science, and build credibility, all while attracting investors, partners, and mission-driven talent. Strategically choosing to sequence open science before IP also allows companies to reduce costs, share risks, and accelerate development without putting at risk exclusive rights over valuable assets. However, few advisors are well-versed in how to integrate open science and IP effectively. Companies should press their consultants on their real-world experience with open science before committing to a plan. IP protections can still be added later, once the science is validated and the commercial potential is clearer.
In an era of constrained funding and complex global challenges, firms that embrace open collaboration early, and protect strategically later, will be better positioned to lead. The question is no longer whether to choose open science or IP, but how and when to use both in order to move fast and deliver impact.
About The Author:
Richard Gold is the Chief Policy and Partnerships Officer at Conscience, an independent organization building open science drug discovery to address unmet health needs. He practiced intellectual property and commercial law at a leading Canadian law firm before becoming a professor and international advisor of life sciences innovation. He is the Director of McGill University’s Centre for Intellectual Property Policy, and Co-Principal Investigator and Open Science, Practices and Partnerships Team Lead for TRIDENT