Context Note

Drug-resistant infections are a crucial issue in the modern medical field. These infections,

developed by the irresponsible prescription and use of antibiotics have the potential to become a

worldwide, life-threatening epidemic if researchers are unable to find efficient and potent

treatments. Current efforts to develop these treatments are poorly coordinated and have little

concentration as there are almost too many potential methods of treatment being researched. This

lack of coordination and cooperation in research efforts has lead to repetition in projects and a

lack of directed effort. By coordinating research activities and compiling findings, the path to

discovering effective treatments for drug-resistant infections will be significantly shorter.

The following paper is intended to be a scholarly essay addressing the lack of

collaboration in drug resistant infection research. The purpose of this paper is to explain why

collaboration is an effective method to stimulate advancement as well as demonstrate how

historical and present collaborations are leading to discoveries in related fields. The audience for

this paper is intended to be those in charge of coordinating and organizing research in academia

or industry, including CTOs, senior scientists and lab coordinators. Those in the intended

audience would see this paper published in a scientific journal, such as PLOS One, or other

publication presented by the Center of Disease Control and Prevention.

 Collaboration: A Necessity, not Option, in Drug-Resistant Infectious Disease Research

Abstract

The development of antibiotic treatments for drug-resistant infections has dramatically

decreased over the past 3 decades. Collaboration in this research is rarely seen in this field of

study and this lack of coordination has lead to inefficiencies and prolonged advancement. This

paper asserts that increased collaboration in drug-resistant infection research will allow for the

sharing of resources, increased oversight of research and accelerated advancement. The benefits

of collaboration can be seen in both historical collaborations, the Human Genome Project and the

discovery of bacterial gene control, as well as in recent research collaborations, the Accelerating

Medicine Partnership and CFAR HIC Continuum of Care Working Group. Funding from both

public and private organizations have an increased focus on collaboration in research and will be

available to fund these ventures.

Introduction

Starting in 1911, the development of novel antibiotics was plentiful. However, since the

mid to late 1990s, antimicrobial agent discovery has stalled heavily with the discovery of only 17

new treatments in the past 25 years [3]. This is out of the 150 already readily used today [3].

With approximately four treatments per year being developed from 1978 to 1993 and

plummeting to less than one per year from 1993 to the present, this marks a significant decrease

in drug-resistant treatment progress [3]. This substantial decrease in advancement is not due to a

lack of interest in this research, but due to the emergence of new drug resistant infections making

it increasingly difficult to develop competent treatment options. This stalling in treatment

discovery and development has called into question the methods that are being used to develop

these treatments. The general research community has tried to combat this decrease is progress

by diversifying the types of treatments that they are working to develop, however this has shown

to have little effect as the rate of developing new treatments has not been significantly increased.

On the contrary, by diversifying research efforts, collaboration and coordination has been

negatively impacted. This independent mentality to research has led to many groups being

guarded, leading to redundancies and inefficiencies in treatment development research.

With that being said, the purpose of this essay will be to explain how collaboration in

drug-resistant treatment research is beneficial to the greater good and researchers alike as well as

demonstrate how historical and present collaborations have succeeded in streamlining research

efforts. Popular topics of contention, including sacrifices of intellectually property and concerns

with potential economic loss, will also be addressed to prove how all costs associated with

collaboration are greatly outweighed by their benefits to mankind. By doing this, it is hoped that
the drug-resistant infection treatment research community will be convinced of the importance of

collaboration and adopt this mentality.

Benefits of Collaboration between Research Entities

Collaboration through the sharing of data and research plans will allow for more research

to be done in a shorter period of time as individuals working in separate labs researching similar

treatment options will be able to coordinate what research they are conducting. This will

decrease the likelihood of overlap in research pipelines. This decrease in redundant research will

allow for an increase in the efficiency and efficacy of research efforts.

While the obvious benefit to collaboration in drug-resistant infection research is the

streamlining of information for the development of cures, there is a multitude of other benefits

associated with this approach. Large collaborations between groups of scientists have been seen

to improve the quality and robustness of data and experimental results [10]. This is due to the

increased oversight of having multiple entities invested in the research being conducted and

those entities being knowledgeable of the work being done. Currently, many research efforts are

financially backed by the government and private investors that have minimal technical

knowledge of the research being conducted and because of this have little ability to know the

quality of research being produced [10]. By having other research organizations investing in

research, not financially but with manpower and intellect, there is greater emphasis and

expectation for data to be reproducible between entities and for a strong commitment to good

scientific practices. This increased oversight also positively impacts the credibility and validity

of the research being conducted, thus through collaboration the quality of research is improved.
 Collaboration and coordination also offer the opportunity for discussion and

disagreement [10]. While conducting research, there is often the tendency for data that is is not

conducive to previously observed trends to be overlooked as outliers or experimental errors.

While many times this may be the case, there is the potential that this overlooked data could

contain vital information to the development of the treatment being investigated. Collaboration

increases the likelihood that this obscure data will be reviewed and considered seriously as the

progression of the research will greatly effect more individual career goals and financial security.

Again, this increased oversight by collaboration participants will decrease the potential of

important data being overlooked.

Finally, collaboration allows for the sharing of resources between institutions. More often

than not, those in private industry or in private research institutions have more resources

available to them than those in academia or publicly funded research groups [8]. This is mostly

due to the affluence of private industry over public funding. By opening collaboration between

the two separate worlds of research there is the potential for the private institutions to share

resources financially or materialistically, while those in publicly funded institutions can

contribute in manpower and ingenuity. This trade off in resources will meet the needs of both

groups and improve the research conducted by both sides.

Past Examples of Successful Medical Collaboration

Although not the standard in the field of medical research historically, there are many

examples of past successful collaborations; one of which is the Human Genome Project. This

notable example of human collaboration and directed effort allowed for major strides in the field

of genetics and molecular biology, specifically the case of mapping of the human genome in only
four years [9]. This would not have been possible without the transparent data sharing that was

conducted throughout the project. By conducting data sharing, results were no longer thought of

as being owned by any given individual, but by all that were participating in the research. This

created a remarkable shift in how intellectual property was treated not as something personally

owned, but as property of the scientific community. By increasing the amount of data in

circulation and dividing the amount of work over a larger group of researchers, discovery was

streamlined. The culmination of research efforts allowed for the maximization of advancements

with the minimizing of redundancies. This giant example of global collaboration is viewed as

one of the greatest research achievements in the field of genetics and biology in the past 100

years.

Successful collaborations have also historically been successful on a smaller scale. The

collaboration between Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod in the 1960s led to the discovery of

bacterial gene control and has also led to the development of numerous DNA sequencing

techniques and indicators using the lac operon [5]. This partnership between a biologist and

biochemist is an excellent example of the benefit of collaboration as each were well

accomplished in their individual fields prior to the collaboration and by working in conjunction,

lead to even greater scientific advancement. This is an excellent example of how each party in a

collaboration can provide critical knowledge to the development of scientific advances.

Resent/Current Collaborative Efforts

Successful collaborations in research are not only limited to the distant past, but can also

be observed recently in the field of medical research. One example of this is the Accelerating

Medicines Partnership (AMP), created by the NIH in 2014 [1]. In hopes to dissuade the
independent research tendencies of biopharmaceutical companies, the NIH has created a

partnership of 12 biopharmaceutical companies and 13 non profit organizations in hopes to

accelerate research progression in the development of new diagnostics and treatments for

Alzheimer’s, type 2 diabetes and lupus [1]. This structure of shared expertise and resources

allows for the best-informed contribution of all parties involved. An important intricacy of this

partnership is that all partners have agreed to make all AMP data generated public to the greater

biomedical community [1]. This is in hopes of decreasing redundancies in research conducted by

those within and outside of this partnership as well as allowing others to benefit from their data

whether it be the discovery of new mechanisms or the identifying of failed experiments. This

partnership has lead to the decrease in the number of failures in Phase II and Phase III clinical

trials, increasing the number of treatments that will likely make it to commercialization per

investment. Phase II trials for lupus treatment developed through this collaboration are set to

begin in early 2018, months to years earlier than expected prior to the formation of this

partnership [1].

The CFAR HIC Continuum of Care Working Group, formed in 2011, is another excellent

example of recent and continually current medical collaborations [2]. The goal of this

organization formed again by NIH is to promote the collaborative investigation of HIV

implementation science with local Departments of Health [2]. This collaboration has positively

impacted the relationship between private research institutions and the local, publically funded

Departments of Health to further understand the continuum of health of those inflicted with HIV,

work to manage infections and move toward a non detectable prognosis. This collaboration has

been financially beneficial and has also publically shown committed support from the national

government to control the current infection rate of HIV as well as work to manage those
inflected with the disease. This formal partnership has made major strides in treatment research,

treatment-as-prevention campaigns and the institutionalization of PrEP into the medical field [2].

By combining the public outreach of local Departments of Health and the financial resources of

private research institutions, this successfully illustrates how those involved in collaborations

each bring a critical resource to the table.

Financial Incentives for Collaborative Research

A common concern of institutions considering collaboration is how they will be funded

and the fear that one entity of the collaboration will be financially burdened by the partnership.

This concern has been addressed by both public and private organizations that have created

funding opportunities through grants specifically reserved for collaborative efforts. In 2008, the

National Health and Medical Research Counsel of Australia announced that they would be

investing more than $132 million dollars into program grants and fellowships specifically

reserved for collaborative research in efforts to inspire partnerships and other working

relationships with EU scientists [7]. These grants will be focused on medical research

specifically related to mental health, diabetes and cardiovascular issues, however could also be

open to a broad range of research areas [7]. This investment in collaborative research is meant to

combat personal tendencies to withhold information to oneself as a way to preserve intellectual

property and potential economic benefit while also inspiring not only collaborative research

within Australia but throughout the global scientific community. Financial incentives to

encourage collaborative ventures is commonplace in many fields of research and is created by

many sectors of investors, both public and private.

 While government action to promote collaborative research is obviously present, third

party foundations have also begun to support and subsidize similar research. The JPB

Foundation’s Medical Research program is now funding consortiums of scientists to target

diseases of high interest [6]. Through this program, they require scientists to meet multiple times

over the course of the grant period to discuss how their research can be better streamlined, both

for individual and joint research efforts [6]. They believe that the variety of perspective that the

multiple scientists from all over the world can offer and the trust established through this

formally-funded collaboration will leave to expedited advancement that could not occur without

data sharing and research coordination. This framework can serve as a template for initiatives

that inspire and coordinate medical research collaboration, specifically within the field of drug

resistant infection research.

Furthermore, academic institutions are also willing to invest in collaborative research.

The University of Melbourne in Australia in 2016 announced that they will be establishing a

relationship with Monash University and other associated medical research institutes and

hospitals [4]. This partnership is seen as an opportunity to bring two leading universities together

to “enable new significant new discovered to be translated more rapidly into new medicines.” [4]

By bringing people together around key goals, they hope to expand partnerships with hospitals,

medical research institutions and commercial players.

It can be seen that government agencies, third party foundation and academic institutions

are all willing and eager to participate and encourage collaborative research. The field of drug-

resistant infection research should capitalize on these opportunities. These options to fund

collaborative research should dissuade any financial fears of institutions considering research

collaborations.
Conclusion

Collaboration is a necessity to improve research efficiency and efficacy and to end the

stall in advancements that have been observed over the past 3 decades. Through the examples

presented above it can be seen that collaboration in drug-resistant infection research will allow

for streamlined research as well as a reduction in redundant efforts. Past examples of successful

scientific collaboration demonstrates how collaboration can lead to world-renowned advances in

the industry and act as a catalyst for future development and discovery. Recent medical

collaborations have illustrated the viability of these relationships in the current research climate.

Findings for these partnerships are plentiful as both government agency and third party

foundations are looking to facilitate collaborative research and are more than willing to

financially support coordinated efforts between leading researchers and research groups.

Benefiting from the sharing of resources, discussion and oversight will allow for improved

advancements in the field of drug-resistant infection research and will leave a positive impact on

mankind.
 Works Cited

[1] “Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP).” National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services, www.nih.gov/research-training/accelerating-medicines-

partnership-amp.

[2] “CFAR HIV Continuum of Care Working Group.” District of Columbia Center for AIDS

Research, George Washington University, dccfar.gwu.edu/cfar-hiv-continuum-care-

working-group.

[3] “Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press,

31 Dec. 1991, academic.oup.com/cid.

[4] “Historic University Collaboration Launched to Discover New Medicines.” Monash

University, www.monash.edu/news/articles/10158.

[5] Lodish, Harvey. “Bacterial Gene Control: The Jacob-Monod Model.” Molecular Cell

Biology. 4th Edition., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1 Jan. 1970,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21683/.

[6] “Medical Research.” JPB Foundation, 12 Oct. 2012, www.jpbfoundation.org/medical-

research/.

[7] National Health and Medical Research Council. “Media Releases.” National Health and

Medical Research Council, www.nhmrc.gov.au/media/releases/2008/international-health-

and-medical-research-collaboration.

[8] “Need for Collaboration.” Responsible Conduct in Collaborative Research, Office of

Research Integrity,

ori.hhs.gov/education/products/niu_collabresearch/collabresearch/need/need.html.
[9] “An Overview of the Human Genome Project.” National Human Genome Research Institute

(NHGRI), www.genome.gov/12011238/an-overview-of-the-human-genome-project/.

[10] Parker, Michael, and Patricia Kingori. “Good and Bad Research Collaborations:

Researchers’ Views on Science and Ethics in Global Health Research.” PLoS ONE,

Public Library of Science, 2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5063577/.

 Reflective Statement

As I began this writing process, I felt as though I had a good handle of how to approach

this paper due to the time I spent on the Unit 2 topic memo. The Unit 2 paper allowed me to

create a framework for my Unit 3 paper and gave me a place to continue to refer back to it and

when I felt overwhelmed by the scale of this paper. I keeps relatively close to my original plan,

however I did choose to write a scholarly essay instead of a proposal as I planned on referencing

multiple other successful collaboration in my paper and a scholarly essay made more sense as the

genre to present my intended purpose.

As I started writing my Unit 3 paper, I again started writing a very rough draft just to get

my thoughts down and to figure out how to organize my final draft. I decided to break my paper

down into 6 sections, each where I address a different aspect of my argument for collaborative

research. This allowed me to easily sort my sources into categories and determine the best way to

use them to build a strong argument. I then continued to revise my draft multiple times to ensure

that I included all that I intended to in my Unit 2 memo as well as took out any redundancies

between sections.

Once I received my peer reviews, I found that I was explain too much of the science of

the argument or the examples that I was presenting. Because the audience of my paper are

experts in the field, this is not necessary and actually decreased the effectiveness of my

argument. To rectify this, I again read through my paper and marked all sections where the

explanation would be elementary for the audience and then replaced them with additional

examples or discussion of the examples that I had already presented. This allowed me to strength
my argument by including addition examples adding credibility to my paper.

Also from my peer revisions, I choose to be more specific in my context note to include

exactly which paper or publication this paper would be in. This help with the focus of my paper

as well as establishing the audience that this paper would be geared toward. Additionally, my

considering what journal this paper would be published in, I was able to better develop the tone

and persona of my paper by referencing other essays published in the journal I selected, PLOS

One.

My experience with rhetorical analysis from Unit 1 again helped me while writing this

paper. The analysis of other documents for purpose, motive and audience aided me when

considering how the word choice and diction I choose to use in my paper would affect these key

characteristics of my paper. Previous experience with rhetorical analysis also was helpful when

reading the sources that I choose to included in my paper and determining any inherent bias that

they may have as well as how they would best fit into my Unit 3 paper.

Overall, I found this experience to difficult but rewarding. I do not often write papers like

a scholarly essay so there was a bit of a learning curve when I began to write my paper.

However, now that it is complete, I have a price of work that I am proud of and I truly believe

that I have grown as a writer through this process.