The need for better IT infrastructure for translational research across Europe is not controversial. It is an imperative. The 2006 ESFRI roadmap sums it up nicely with this statement:

“Modern science is inconceivable without recourse to well structured, continuously upgraded, massively enriched at an exponential rate and freely accessible databases.”

On the 19^th of March the Translational Research IT (TraIT) public/private partnership held a symposium titled: “Connected in translation”.  TraIT is project that has the mission to help the 21 projects of the Dutch funded Center for Translational Molecular Medicine (CTMM) cope with the resulting ‘tsunami’ of data.

Professor Frank Miedema, vice chairman of the Netherlands Foundation of UMCs, showed a slide that was jam packed with the acronymns of projects, institutions and funding bodies that have a stake in improving translational research IT infrastructure in the Netherlands.  The Dutch are quite good at keeping their feet dry and the number of stakeholders looking to address the oncoming data tsunami are homage to their initiative.  The problem is, that like the rest of Europe, the result is a veritable patchwork quilt of initiatives with overlapping objectives.

TraIT has both a national and international remit.  Accordingly eTRIKS was asked to present at the symposium.  eTRIKS like TraIT, is using transMART as a core piece of  technology. One of the points raised in the discussion was what about other efforts with similar objectives such as BioMed Bridges use different technology, a point that underscores the difficulties of striving towards a unified harmony in European IT infrastructure.

On a whole projects are developed and funded using a competitive model. This is not to say there is fierce competition between projects. It is just that different stakeholders developed different funding programs, under a competitive call process. Having a variety of approaches has certain advantages. No one approach or technology is suitable for all needs and requirements.

Competition is a normal state of affairs in the commercial world. Yet it is not the only model. Clearly collaboration has of late proven to be a very successful model most evidenced by the Open Handset Alliance’s development of the Android mobile operating system.

Hoofbeats in the distance

In the old westerns the sound of many hoofbeats approaching was always worth paying attention too. You can definitely hear the hoofbeats of collaboration approaching in the field of translational research.  Public/private partnerships like CTMM and the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) are gaining momentum. When the IMI started there were skeptics.

Public/private partnerships redefine relationships. Companies that used to compete collaborate. Academic/private relationships change from a fundee/funder relationship to one of collaboration between two equally active partners.

These sorts of partnerships are likely to be become more and more prevalent. A recent European Commission independent review of the IMI had this to say:

“IMI is a success. It is working and should be continued with an enlarged scope.”

Public/private partnerships are, however, collaborative models for single projects. Project to project collaboration is not the same. Yes, the motivation for collaborating is the same, increased operational efficiency, synergistic knowledge exchange and magnified end value. Yet, there are barriers and challenges to project to project collaboration.

Mega-consortia

Project to project collaborations can be a bit scary. The advent of ‘Mega-Consortia’ sows dread in the heart of every project manager. Size of a consortium is inversely related to speed of its delivery.  On the other hand, forming only small consortia carries the risk that there is a high degree redundancy and poor interoperability. Smaller projects tend to be more insular.

Here is the conundrum. Small consortia are more likely to deliver, but create a degree of inefficiency from the broader landscape perspective. The ideal state is small, aligned consortia with minimal redundancy. How to achieve this? We have to make efforts to align and harmonize the various translational research IT infrastructure consortia.  Miedema enlivened the symposium attendees when he assertively put forth that such efforts are urgently needed in the Netherlands and internationally.

What tsunami preparedness can teach us about harmonization

The US National Oceans and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) categorizes tsunami warnings into 4 levels.  1) Information statements: notification that an earthquake has occurred, 2) Watch: Potentially dangerous distance seismic event has occurred, 3) Advisory: Potential tsunami which may produce strong currents or waves, 4) Warning: A tsunami is expected

Similarly we can address the data ‘tsunami’ using a 4 level project to project collaboration model.

The 4 Level Project to Project Collaboration Model

1. Awareness: Knowing what other projects are in existence and what they are doing. Symposia like the one held by TraIT and online forums such as the eTRIKS blog are excellent ways to build awareness of projects.
2. Knowledge exchange: As aligned projects often face the same problems there is an immediate efficiency gain by sharing knowledge. For example the U-BIOPRED project makes its SOPs available to other consortia to foster harmonization.
3. Small joint projects: It is easy to attend each other’s meetings and exchange ideas, but more difficult to do more. Often the good intentions of project to project collaboration stall at the second level. This can be overcome by small joint projects that quickly lead to something tangible. For example publishing a joint statement on the Ethics landscape
4. Integrated projects: A good example of this is the transMART open source project. As detailed in the post about the eTRIKS/transMART Developer’s workshop post this is where projects are fully participated towards a goal – improving transMART a fundamental tool for IT infrastructure both TraIT and eTRIKS developer’s are participating in the current effort to reshape the transMART core.

A push towards the 4th level of project to project collaboration is needed. Let’s face it everyone has expectations of individual projects that exceed available budget. Making an effort to collaborate on a project to project level is the only way to meet those expectations.

As Hans Stam, managing director of the Dutch Heart Foundation, reminded everyone it is important not to lose site of who this effort is for – the patient. You cannot have a better reason to endeavor for more collaboration.